Re: thoughts points system for silver

Hello,

When evaluating accessibility, I've noticed there are two approaches. One,
exemplified by the current WCAG, evaluates results. The other, exemplified
by the Disability Equality Index
<https://disabilityin.org/what-we-do/disability-equality-index/>, measures
process that should ensure results.  I too have a UX background and in UX
we can test the process  that should ensure results by asking if usability
testing, cognitive walkthroughs, design documentation, etc were done. But
usually we test the results which in UX is number of clicks, time to
complete, number of errors, etc depending on the usability measure being
tested.

We are, in some ways, mixing apples and oranges by making a measure in
silver whether the process is in place.  Would it make sense to instead
state that usability measures tested should demonstrate a comparable
experience in time, number of clicks, errors, etc. between people with and
without disabilities?

This isn't a fully formed thought but rather a suggested line of thinking.

Regards,

Rachael

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) <
Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com> wrote:

> My thought here was simply that outcomes are measurable by meeting the
> guideline.
>
> I still also think / believe that from a conformance standpoint, an
> individual guideline starts with one or maybe two functional needs in mind
> when it is created, like “Use of Color” (addresses color perception
> specifically), and that meeting that need gets the points. But if I as a
> creator then test my solution with people that had multiple other
> functional needs and learn that a warning icon in addition to my red error
> text was a problem for people with anxiety disorders, and not using the
> word “error” in the text was a problem for people without usage of vision,
> and subsequently changed those 2 things to solutions that also worked for
> those functional needs, then I have essentially made a bigger human impact
> and somehow the score should reflect that.
>
>
> 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://www.mrm-mccann.com/>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On 7/18/19, 11:57 AM, "Léonie Watson" <lw@tetralogical.com> wrote:
>
>
>     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://www.mrm-mccann.com/>
>     >
>     > 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>


-- 
Rachael Montgomery, PhD
Director, Accessible Community
rachael@accessiblecommunity.org