W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > July 2019

Re: thoughts points system for silver

From: Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:37:50 +0000
To: Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D7BA059-4983-4DB6-8CBB-E301059E6796@mrm-mccann.com>
I believe that a “process that should ensure results” is one that would be rewarded by the second currency of ribbons model, since “should ensure” does not equal “meets need”.

I do agree that if the model supports any points or currency for the practice of usability testing, that said practice should verify (and possibly quantify) that it included people of a variety of functional needs.


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: Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 3:04 PM
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: thoughts points system for silver
Resent-From: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 3:03 PM

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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__disabilityin.org_what-2Dwe-2Ddo_disability-2Dequality-2Dindex_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Ftw_YSVcGmqQBvrGwAZugGylNRkk-uER0-5bY94tjsc&r=FbsK8fvOGBHiAasJukQr6i2dv-WpJzmR-w48cl75l3c&m=bBaqwWJHz2lXmBEu-LGWJhhqPkbRMArGsZrSAfki2qY&s=FusdllGhGVrBFnYmuFlmilL55MEOBUwadSfX1-DD-S8&e=>, 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<mailto: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> <mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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>
    > <mailto: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<http://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<mailto:loiselles@me.com>>
    > *Date: *Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 10:05 AM
    > *To: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org<mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
    > *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] thoughts points system for silver
    > *Resent-From: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>


image001.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)

Received on Thursday, 18 July 2019 19:38:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:46 UTC