Re: ISSUE-34: Formal studies don\'t cover disability access adequately, use experts too - (public comment)

I totally agree with the synopsis of this issue. I thought for sure we 
covered expert review in section 10, the Process section of wsc-usecases. 
We don't. I propose we add a subsection to 10 (I suggest putting it 
first):

10.n Expertise and Experience

By its very nature, the public reviews of the deliverables of this working 
group via the W3C standards process will provide pertinent and timely 
input from researchers and practitioners in a variety of disciplines, 
including usability and design, security, and accessibility. That feedback 
may be based on experience with other standards efforts, experience 
prototyping or developing software or devices, experience with deployment 
or use of software or devices, or other forms of anecdotal evidence. This 
data represents experience and knowledge that has not been or cannot be 
captured via document principles, previous studies, or the working group's 
testing. The working group will use such feedback to inform our 
recommendations. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




Web Security Context Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
04/13/2007 07:54 AM
Please respond to
Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>


To
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
cc

Subject
ISSUE-34: Formal studies don\'t cover disability access adequately, use 
experts too - (public comment)








ISSUE-34: Formal studies don't cover disability access adequately, use 
experts too - (public comment)

http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/track/issues/34

Raised by: Bill Doyle
On product: All

>From Public working group comments

Formal studies don't cover disability access adequately, use experts too 
where it says in 2.1 Document the status quo:
The Working Group will catalog existing presentation of security
   information and corresponding user interpretations reported in user
   studies.
please consider
You can't limit the user interpretations that you integrate into your data 
to 
formal studies.  Formal studies are often not available that cover people 
with 
disability-adapted delivery contexts.  You need to open the gates to allow 
for 
the advice of experts and some anecdotal experience from users in building 

this reference base of experience.
Why? 
Most studies that attempt to test for statistical significance don't have 
the 
numbers of people with ability diversity to control for that or even let 
the 
experience of people with disabilities count much.  So weaker forms of 
evidence than formal studies have to be relied on