Re: '"Usable Accessibility'" TF VS. Higher education

Hi David,

Thank you very much for your thought provoking email.

I agree that the Digital Instructional Materials issue may be the
lower hanging fruit.

Yes, UX is a large field. Piecemeal UX in existing Task Forces may be
a way to address parts of the issue. But could it provide an overall
framework and a cohesive whole? Maybe in time it could, if those
pieces could be identified and aggregated. Something that ties
everything together might be worth exploring.

As I mentioned to Neil, 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.  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.

With regards to getting the work done, you mentioned that the WCAG WG
is a 14 person committee. Our "Participants in the WCAG WG" page lists
101 participants [1].

But I do agree UX people would need to be recruited if a UX Task Force
came to fruition. One idea was to contact those authors of the studies
who were critical of WCAG and ask them to join the effort. As I said
in my first email on this subject, I did ask two who have said they
would be happy to work on usability documentation and to contribute
discussion with time permitting. It couldn't hurt to ask others, if we
think a UX TF is worthwhile.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participants.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0026.html
[3] http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/


On 7/7/15, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hi Laura
>
> Regarding the the 2 new proposed new task forces
>
>    1. UX intersecting with a11y
>    2. Higher education
>
> I think the the higher education issue is a low hanging fruit. I think an
> experienced WCAG person who is in the education world could fairly easily
> identify issues and gaps in WCAG for LMS, Teacher/student bulletin boards,
> etc... and come back to the committee with a proposed road map to meet the
> gaps. My guess is that most SCs would apply, but perhaps some additional
> techniques in an extension.
>
> On the other hand UX is a huge field. I just don't see how we could add
> that to our load. We have currently
>
> -Mobile
>
> -Cognitive
>
> -Techniques (HTML, WAI ARIA, maintenence of current techs)
>
> -Low vision
>
> How are we going to take UX on? We are about a 14 person committee, all who
> have full time jobs and do this volunteer. It took us 2 years to write 20
> aria techniques.
>
> When I speak with UX experts I have a great respect for their art. They
> have a respect for mine. There are many things about UX that are beyond my
> expertise and interest, which is how I can fill the gap between what people
> with disabilities can do and what others take for granted. I recognize that
> elegant design means better accessibility in many circumstances. In others
> it means worse accessibility for some.
>
> I'd rather address UX concerns within the context of the task forces
> already set out. I'm guessing that there will be many UX proposals in the
> cognitive TF, in the mobile and Low vision. I think through those lenses we
> can propose some very good suggestions for UX experts to take into their
> domain. I expect some of these will be best practices, but many will be
> testable, and can find their way into the core.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
> wrote:
>
>> I also think such distinctions are healthy!
>>
>> Good thread
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> Sent from TypeMail <http://www.typeapp.com/r>
>> On 6 Jul 2015, at 19:08, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
>>> gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  one comment
>>>>
>>>>   Your statement regarding accessible but unusable
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  *I didn’t mean to imply that anything was accessible if it wasn’t also
>>>> usable.*  (I fight that every day)
>>>>
>>>>  What I meant was -      *it could pass “Minimum Accessibility
>>>> Requirements (such as WCAG or 508)”  and still not be usable.
>>>> *(mostly
>>>> because we can only level playing fields — not ensure that they are not
>>>> under water entirely)
>>>>
>>>>  It is important to remember that   things that pass   WCAG or 508 or
>>>> any other guidelines - have just passed some set of “minimum
>>>> accessibility
>>>> requirements”  — but they still will not be accessible to some people -
>>>> no
>>>> matter what the guidelines are.   So things should *never* be referred
>>>> to as accessible as a statement of status - just because the passed
>>>> some
>>>> minimum accessibility standard like WCAG of 508.  (Though of course we
>>>> commonly refer to things as accessible if they meet ADAAG or 508 or
>>>> WCAG.
>>>> Perhaps we need to change our language and say   “ADA compliant”  or
>>>> WCAG
>>>> conformant etc  rather than ever calling anything “accessible” as a
>>>> flat
>>>> statement
>>>>
>>>>  Gregg
>>>>
>>>
>>>  ​+1 !!
>>>  Loretta​
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:20:12 UTC