Re[2]: Usability, UCD, UX, or '"Usable Accessibility'" TF and Extension

>Not a bad idea!
Its a good one. I'd be interested on working with this extension myself!

Thanks Laura.

Josh

>
>
>
>* katie *
>
>Katie Haritos-Shea
>Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
>Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile 
>| Office: 703-371-5545
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2015 11:39 AM
>To: WCAG WG
>Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; Joshue O Connor
>Subject: Usability, UCD, UX, or '"Usable Accessibility'" TF and 
>Extension
>
>Hello Everyone,
>
>Background:
>
>Over the years a number [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7], [8], [9] of 
>studies and articles have criticized WCAG for having an ambiguous 
>relationship with usability, not having a framework that includes 
>usability, or not having guidelines on usability best practices etc. I 
>reviewed two of the studies [10] [11] for the WCAG Issues Sorted Page 
>[12] and there does seem to be a usability theme.
>
>For instance the study, "Forcing Standardization or Accommodating 
>Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World" [3], 
>cites the WCAG 1.0 definition of accessible [13]:
>
>"Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with a 
>disability."
>
>The study then argues that the test for whether a Web site is 
>accessible is if people with disabilities can use it, not whether it 
>conforms to guidelines. The study concludes that WAI should include 
>usability within its remit and future versions of WCAG should include 
>guidelines on best practices for usability.
>
>WCAG 2.0 does not define accessibility [14]. Regarding usability, 
>Understanding WCAG 2.0 specifically states [15]:
>
>"There are many general usability guidelines that make content more 
>usable by all people, including those with disabilities. However, in 
>WCAG 2.0, we only include those guidelines that address problems 
>particular to people with disabilities. This includes issues that block 
>access or interfere with access to the Web more severely for people 
>with disabilities."
>
>WAI's Education and Outreach Working Group has explored the 
>relationship between accessibility and usability in a number of drafts 
>and documents to encourage increased communication and coordination 
>between the two areas as well as promoting the benefits of involving 
>users with disabilities to identify usability issues that are not 
>discovered by conformance evaluation alone. Some of those documents
>are:
>
>* [Draft] Web Accessibility and Usability  [16]
>* [Editors Draft] Web Accessibility and Usability Working Together [17]
>* Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility [18]
>* Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility [19]
>
>As discussed in my review of Guidelines are only half of the story:
>accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web [1] the 
>definition of "accessible" has recently been expanded to include 
>usability in United States Department of Education, Office for Civil 
>Rights (OCR) resolution agreements.
>
>The OCR and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) share enforcement 
>responsibility for academic and public accommodations under the 
>Americans with Disabilities Act and its 2008 Amendments and Section
>504 of the Rehabilitation Act. These agencies have the authority to 
>conduct a compliance audit or to initiate an investigation in response 
>to a complaint, which can be filed by anyone. These agencies will often 
>seek to enter into a resolution agreement with the subject institution 
>in lieu of conducting an investigation and seeking sanctions or 
>bringing a lawsuit. The OCR has begun to use the following definition 
>and I quote:
>
>"'Accessible' means a person with a disability is afforded the 
>opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same 
>interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a 
>disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with 
>substantially equivalent ease of use. The person with a disability must 
>be able to obtain the information as fully, equally and independently 
>as a person without a disability. Although this might not result in 
>identical ease of use compared to that of persons without disabilities, 
>it still must ensure equal opportunity to the educational benefits and 
>opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use 
>of such technology. " (Sources: South Carolina Technical College System 
>Resolution Agreement [20] University of Cincinnati Resolution Agreement 
>[21], Youngstown State University Resolution Agreement [22]).
>
>It is significant to recognize that usability is an important aspect 
>for people with disabilities. The topic of "Usable Accessibility" may 
>help enhance WCAG 2. The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) 
>explains [23] and I quote:
>
>"Usable accessibility combines usability and accessibility to develop 
>positive user experiences for people with disabilities. User-centered 
>design processes (UCD) include both techniques for including users 
>throughout design and evaluation, and using guidelines for design and 
>evaluation. UCD helps make informed decisions about accessible design.
>Thus UCD is necessary to improve accessibility in websites and web 
>tools...The goal of web accessibility is to make the Web work well for 
>people, specifically people with disabilities. While technical 
>standards are an essential tool for meeting that goal, marking off a 
>checklist is not the end goal. People with disabilities effectively 
>interacting with and contributing to the Web is the end goal. To make 
>the Web work well for people with disabilities, designers and 
>developers need to understand the basics of how people with 
>disabilities use the Web. Following UCD to involve people with 
>disabilities throughout design processes and involve users in web 
>accessibility evaluation helps design solutions that are effective for 
>users and for developers."
>
>Discussion:
>
>WCAG's relationship to usability may merit Working Group discussion if 
>it has not already been discussed. We may want to contemplate the 
>question of if a tighter integration of usability and accessibility is 
>in or out of scope for a WCAG Task Force. If it is in scope, would a 
>"Usable Accessibility" or UCD extension or other documentation be in 
>order?
>
>Perhaps some usability folks may be interested in an extension, maybe 
>the authors the studies? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6 [7], [8], [9]. At 
>this point, I've asked two, who have said they would be happy to work 
>on usability documentation and to contribute discussion time 
>permitting.
>
>So...what do you think? Your thoughts and comments on this topic would 
>be most welcome and appreciated.
>
>Kindest Regards,
>Laura
>
>References:
>
>[1] Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems 
>encountered by blind users on the web - Christopher Power, Andre 
>Freire, Helen Petrie, David Swallow
>http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2207736
>
>[2] Contextual web accessibility - maximizing the benefit of 
>accessibility guidelines - Brian Kelly, David Sloan, Lawrie Phipps, 
>Helen Petrie, Fraser Hamilton 
>http://ukwebfocus.com/papers/forcing-standardization-or-accommodating-diversity-a-framework-for-applying-the-wcag-in-the-real-world/
>
>[3] Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for 
>Applying the WCAG in the Real World - David Sloan, Andy Heath, Fraser 
>Hamilton, Brian Kelly, Helen Petri, Lawrie Phipps
>http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1133242
>
>[4] A challenge to web accessibility metrics and guidelines: putting 
>people and processes first - Martyn Cooper, David Sloan, Brian Kelly, 
>Sarah Lewthwaite
>http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2207016.2207028
>
>[5] Complementing standards by demonstrating commitment and progress - 
>Sarah Horton, David Sloan, Henny Swan
>http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2745555.2746654
>
>[6] The future of WCAG – maximising its strengths not its weaknesses - 
>Jonathan Hassell, "it's debatable whether many of the missing success 
>criteria to address those missing problems are accessibility or 
>usability issues."
>http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2013/01/wcag-future/
>
>[7] Holistic Approaches to E-Learning Accessibility - Lawrie Phipps and 
>Brian Kelly http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ817923.pdf
>
>[8] "...absurd distinctions that are sometimes made about the usability 
>and accessibility of web content" - Roger Hudson 
>http://usability.com.au/2013/01/headings-who-needs-em/
>
>[9] "...Particular difficulty with issues that blur the boundary 
>between usability and accessibility" - Roger Hudson 
>http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/measuring-accessibility/
>
>[10] Laura's review of "Forcing Standardization or Accommodating 
>Diversity?"
>http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/reviews/standardisation_or_diversity.html
>
>[11] Laura's review of "Guidelines are only half of the story"
>http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/reviews/guidelines_only_half_the_story.html
>
>[12] Post WCAG 2 Issues Sorted
>https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted
>
>[13] WCAG 1.0 definition of accessible
>http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#glossary
>
>[14] WCAG 2.0 Glossary
>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#glossary
>
>[15] WCAG 2.0 on Usability
>http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html#introduction-fourprincs-head
>
>[16] [Draft] Web Accessibility and Usability 
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/access-use/accessibility-n-usability-2010-10Oct-31.html
>
>[17] [Editors Draft] Web Accessibility and Usability Working Together 
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/access-use/accessibility-n-usability.html
>
>[18] Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility 
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/involving
>
>[19] Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility 
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/users.html
>
>[20] South Carolina Technical College System Resolution Agreement (PDF) 
>https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/11116002-b.pdf
>
>[21] University of Cincinnati Resolution Agreement (PDF) 
>http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/university-cincinnati-agreement.pdf
>
>[22] Youngstown State University Resolution Agreement (PDF) 
>http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/youngstown-state-university-agreement.pdf
>
>--
>Laura Carlson
>
>

Received on Saturday, 4 July 2015 17:46:34 UTC