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

Hi All--

If the W3C decides at some point to tackle usable accessibility (as opposed to UX, which is much broader) a good starting point might be the design patterns published by companies like Apple. They would be a thoughtful mix of form and function. 

Mike



> On Jul 7, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 8 July 2015 00:10:29 UTC