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

Thanks for the excellent post.

This definition of accessibility is also one of the best I have seen.
> "'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. " 



The topic of Usability and Accessibility is a tricky one.   When working on WCAG 2.0 we had a long discussion of this early on. 

Some thoughts and comments out of those discussions - just to toss them into the ring here

If a page is not usable by those without disabilities — doing the “accessible” things to it will almost always result in a page that is accessible and unusable to both people with disabilities and those without. 
(Sometimes it makes the page accessible and usable to both— but not usually(
In working on WCAG 2.0 - our charge was to determine what had to be done to pages in order to “level the playing field”.  That is, to make the page as accessible (see definition above) as is technically possible and practical.  
In doing this we had to work to consensus (since WCAG 2.0 is a consensus standard).  It was pointed out to us early on that Usability went beyond accessibility, and that there was no requirement anywhere that products be usable.  Only that they not be less usable by people with disabilities than they were to people without disabilities.  
We found that many times a ‘minor’ usability problem for those without disabilities became a major usability problem (and thus an accessibility issue) for people when they had one or another type of disability.  In these cases we labeled them accessibility issues and they were in scope.
Sometime we found that pages were equally unusable by everyone - with and without disabilities.  But since there was no major difference (everyone was unable) - this was found to not be in scope.
So for those that say “you can meet WCAG 2.0 and still have an unusable page”  - they are correct.   
(it is also true that you can meet WCAG 2.0 and still have accessibility issues on the page.   It is stated clearly in the WCAG 2.0 preamble that "even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas.” )
A lot of usability is matching the interface to the content and the task. It is hard to make things usable by following rules.  In most usability guidelines are not black and white so it isn't something you can say you must do this and if you do X you can check this off as being done.

No conclusion. These are just thoughts to ponder as we keep exploring and discussing this area.


QUOTES FROM WCAG
"Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity and combinations of these. Following these guidelines will also often make your Web content more usable to users in general.”
"Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible, to this community. Metadata <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html#understanding-metadata> may assist users in finding content most suitable for their needs."




gregg

----------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@raisingthefloor.org




> On Jul 4, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Neil Milliken <Neil.Milliken@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> This is also something that we have been considering ass part of the work of the COGA TF as there is significant overlap between usability and thigs that help people with cognitive disabilities.  Fully supportive of this initiative.
> 
> Neil
> From: Wayne Dick [wayneedick@gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 July 2015 20:34
> To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
> Cc: Laura Carlson; WCAG WG; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Joshue O Connor
> Subject: 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 <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Not a bad idea!
> 
> 
> 
> * katie *
> 
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
> 
> Cell: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com <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 <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 Hamiltonhttp://ukwebfocus.com/papers/forcing-standardization-or-accommodating-diversity-a-framework-for-applying-the-wcag-in-the-real-world/ <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 <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 <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 <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/ <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 <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/ <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/ <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#glossary>
> 
> [14] WCAG 2.0 Glossary
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#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 <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 <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 <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 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/involving>
> 
> [19] Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/users.html <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 <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 <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 <http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/youngstown-state-university-agreement.pdf>
> 
> --
> Laura Carlson