- From: Josh CFIT <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 17:46:13 +0000
- To: "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'WCAG WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>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