- From: Frederick Boland <frederickboland@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:17:56 -0400
- To: Jennifer Chadwick <jcha@siteimprove.com>
- Cc: "lw@tetralogical.com" <lw@tetralogical.com>, "Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)" <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>, Chris Loiselle <loiselles@me.com>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
+1 Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 18, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Jennifer Chadwick <jcha@siteimprove.com> wrote: > > As a UX person, I also agree with Charles and Léonie. I prefer the focus to be on the end user experience and outcome of testing. > > > > Jennifer Chadwick > Lead Accessibility Strategist and Product Expert, North America > > > > 110 Yonge Street, Suite 700 | Toronto, Ontario M5C 1T4 > Direct +1 647 952 0364 | jcha@siteimprove.com > > > > > Click here to opt out of receiving emails. > Cliquez ici pour vous désabonner/désinscrire. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:57 AM > To: Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>; Chris Loiselle <loiselles@me.com>; Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org> > Subject: Re: thoughts points system for silver > > >> On 18/07/2019 16:33, Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) wrote: >> My opinion (and I say this as a UX person) is that testing itself is >> the wrong emphasis. What the guideline should encourage is outcomes... >>> I also have a pretty strong opinion that the level of effort of the >> author / creator is both immeasurable and moot. > > > I agree on both counts. > > Do you have any thoughts on how we might gauge the outcomes? > > > Léonie. > >> >> *Charles Hall* // Senior UX Architect >> >> (he//him) >> >> charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com >> <mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com?subject=Note%20From%20Signature> >> >> w 248.203.8723 >> >> m 248.225.8179 >> >> 360 W Maple Ave, Birmingham MI 48009 >> >> mrm-mccann.com >> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww >> .mrm-mccann.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjcha%40siteimprove.com%7C91cf4b2 >> d19e14fce3dd708d70b98c6e7%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7 >> C636990623113473298&sdata=7%2Bqwitgc7zdNzhqGHrglGJLi%2FdSJNNtZ41ZR >> XOTrJrE%3D&reserved=0> >> >> MRM//McCann >> >> Relationship Is Our Middle Name >> >> Network of the Year, Cannes Lions 2019 >> >> Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017, 2019 >> >> Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017 >> >> Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year 2018 >> >> North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016 >> >> Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant 2017, 2018, 2019 >> >> Most Creatively Effective Agency Network in the World, Effie 2018, >> 2019 >> >> *From: *Chris Loiselle <loiselles@me.com> >> *Date: *Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 10:05 AM >> *To: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org> >> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] thoughts points system for silver >> *Resent-From: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org> >> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 10:04 AM >> >> Hi Silver, >> >> Just a thought off of today's call: >> >> In regard to point system, would the fact that user testing was >> completed at a given organization during the development of a product >> give them extra points vs. not completing user testing at all? >> >> >> >> For each demographic of user testing, grading all user tests equally, >> would someone who tests with a user that has limited sight and a user >> that is hard of hearing not receive as many points as someone that >> tests with someone who is Blind, someone who has low vision, someone >> who is Deaf, someone who is hard of hearing, someone with a cognitive >> disability (etc.)? >> >> >> >> What if the organization went deep on depth of testing with the user >> who is Blind and the user who has limited sight, but only went surface >> level >> (breadth) with multiple users each with a different disabilities vs. >> diving deep with two users ? Would those be weighted differently? The >> same? I know there was discussion on ribbons, points, badges, where >> would that come into play? >> >> Thank you, >> Chris Loiselle >> >> This message contains information which may be confidential and >> privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to >> receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, >> copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information >> contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, >> please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message. >> Thank you very much. > > -- > @TetraLogical TetraLogical.com >
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2019 17:18:23 UTC