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

I should probably be on this TF.  I was the Academic Materials
Accessibility Coordinator for the California State University System; I
also wrote our first online instructional materials policy at CSU Long
Beach when I was Senate Chair; As a CS professor I started developing
instructinal materials back in the mid 90's, and I consulted with a major
online testing provider.  So, I have something to contribute.  How do I get
started.

Wayne

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Not a bad idea!
>
>
>
> * 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
>
>
>
>