W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Personalisation examples (Was: Re: should we say "critical controls" or just "controls")

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:37:16 +0000
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E711AEEA-34E1-4341-AF8C-8711F21428BB@nomensa.com>
Detlev wrote:
> So to sum up, I don't think any meaningful user testing activity can be carried out based on this implementation. 
    
Whilst true I don’t think that’s fair. The demo was created as a way of showing how it would work, not providing a real world test. 


> I also looked at the example pointed to by Christophe http://build.fluidproject.org/prefsEditors/demos/explorationTool/ and while this is closer to being usable, there are some odd choices…

For me this is one of the problems with including the 1st bullet point in the SC text and encouraging sites to create their own implementations. As a user (*especially* if you have cognitive issues) you don’t want to learn a new way of doing things for every site.

I’ve tested on-page layout widgets for low vision users, and even after being introduced to the widget and them saying it was useful, they didn’t use the same widget in the next site they used. These things have to be built into *your* technology.

That’s another reason to drop the first bullet (for on-page widgets) and concentrate on the key meta-data aspects.

Cheers,

-Alastair

Received on Friday, 30 June 2017 10:37:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:14 UTC