- From: David Sloan <DSloan@computing.dundee.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:01:16 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Cc: "Helen Petrie (h.l.petrie@herts.ac.uk)" <h.l.petrie@herts.ac.uk>
Hi there, Firstly, my apologies for the recent silence regarding our WCAG Usability testing proposal since I talked at the WG Face-to-Face in Amsterdam. Helen Petrie and I have submitted a proposal to a UK charitable foundation in application for funding for the project, and it will take a few weeks to discover the progress of the application. The latest version of the proposal is now on the web at: http://www.dmag.org.uk/misc/wcag_usability_test.asp One change is that we are now looking to run the project over 12 months, rather than the 6 months I suggested at the face-to-face. However we are still very keen to ensure that what we do meets the needs and wishes of the Working group as far as possible, and to that end the proposal methodology as documented in the above web page is still very much under development. As discussed at the face to face, a number of issues came up, with questions which may require debate: 1. Ecological validity of testing environment: - many users will not refer to printed or web based guidelines, but will use them if delivered via a piece of software/a GUI (e.g. as part of an authoring tool). - Conversely, it could be argued that the initial research should concentrate on the web based WCAG as is. - Some users will be familiar with Bobby, and/or the WAVE, A-Prompt etc, perhaps as their token accessibility checker. There is a list of these on the WAI site, but will this list be clearly linked from the WCAG? I would suggest that it should, if the WCAG is to be optimally usable. Question: In what format should the guidelines be offered to participants in the research? Should participants be given access to, or told about checking tools such as the above? 2. Subject Characteristics - The proposal suggests a evaluation with two groups - 12 experienced web authors and 12 novice web authors - However, as we know, around the world, web authors are found in many different environments, with many different backgrounds/levels of learning/paths to gaining knowledge. - within the professional web authoring sector there are people who put increasingly complex information on the web using increasingly complex solutions, and there are people who use the web to take visual design of media to new levels. In some cases it may be hard to distinguish one from the other! - there are a wide variety of authoring tools out there; there are also people who code by hand, and those who simply choose the "Convert to HTML" option in word processing packages. - yet there was also concern at the face-to-face that the study should not be "watered down" or compromised in order to be all inclusive. Question: Should initial testing take place of, as far as possible, a homogeneous group of users, followed by further (parallel?) studies of other groups? For example, initially only UK based Dreamweaver users working for web design companies. 3. The research will look at how participants use the WCAG to spot accessibility problems in existing sites, and also when creating sites of their own, given a carefully chosen design brief. Not only must experts be on hand to assess sites for accessibility problems, but they must interact with participants on completion of the task to try to explain the presence of any accessibility problems, even after participants having had access to the WCAG. Things we feel important to discover include - areas where participants had trouble implementing any of the guidelines? - explanations of why accessibility barriers noticed by experts are present (including whether participants were aware of this) - level of satisfaction of participants in what they're created, from a design point of view, plus any constraints under which they felt the WCAG placed them. Question: What further information would group members like to see the research uncover? 4. Are there any other comments or questions on the methodology set out in the proposal? We look forward to hearing your feedback! Cheers, David
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2001 07:01:28 UTC