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

Hi Katie, Josh, Shadi, Wayne, Debra, Neil, Gregg, Alastair, and all,

Thank you for the enthusiasm, and thoughtful comments.

Shadi, thank you for your clarification and passing this thread [1] to
the Education and Outreach Working Group [2]. If a Usability Task
Force (TF) becomes a reality, it may make sense for EO WG and WCAG WG
to do some collaboration.

Niel, I agree that there is a significant overlap between usability
and things that help people with cognitive disabilities. I suspect
this may be true for low vision and other TFs too. Coordinating work
could be handled in a couple of different ways but it would probably
more efficient overall to not try to reinvent the wheel when possible.
One idea: a  central repository may make sense when something effects
more than 2 TFs. BTW the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) has set of general usability guidelines [3], which indicate
relative importance and strength of evidence. What they don't indicate
is which groups of people with disabilities would benefit from each
guideline or if conflicts exist between groups or what scenarios they
would be applicable to. (Please note Alastair's cautionary comments
regarding effective usability guidelines [4]).

Wayne, Wow. You have a rich background in Instructional Materials [5],
which would be a great asset. To clarify do you mean that you would
want to become a Usability Task Force member as we are discussing on
this thread [1]. Or did you mean that you would want to become a
Digital Instructional Materials Task Force member as proposed in the
"Digital Instructional Materials TF and Extension" thread [7]? I
posted two different ideas for Task Forces last Saturday.

As for how to join a newly proposed WCAG working group, I am not sure.
Our Chairs, Josh and Andrew, would probably be best to answer that
question. But I suspect people could add their preferences in the
comments on this week's survey regarding Task Forces. [7] Josh?

Gregg, thank you so very much for the WCAG history and perspective. It
is great to have that background information. Very valuable indeed and
much appreciated. Your statement regarding accessible but unusable
reminds me of Jared Smith's article from a couple of years ago,
"Accessibility Lipstick on a Usability Pig" [8]. In it he states,
"Applying accessibility techniques to an unusable site is like putting
lipstick on a pig. No matter how much you apply, it will always be a
pig."

Alastair, you raised a significant point when you wrote, "For me the
question is whether WCAG can or should mandate a UCD process, or come
up with a more usability-testing based approach." [4] I don't think
following WCAG extensions are mandatory. But both ideas could be
discussed.

Kindest regards,
Laura

[1] Usability, UCD, UX, or "Usable Accessibility"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0026.html

[2] Fwd: Re: Usability, UCD, UX, or '"Usable Accessibility'" TF and Extension
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2015JulSep/0003.html

[3] http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/
http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/

[4] Alastair Campbell's 6 Jul 2015 post
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0037.html

[5] Wayne Dick's 4 Jul 2015  post
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0031.html

[6] Laura's Digital Instructional Materials TF Email
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0025.html

[7] Survey: WCAG member Task Force options July 2015
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/TFoptions2015/

[8] Accessibility Lipstick on a Usability Pig
http://webaim.org/blog/accessibility-lipstick-on-a-usability-pig/

--
Laura Carlson

Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 12:48:33 UTC