Re: Automated and manual testing process

We should specify the criteria to be met but avoid being prescriptive on which testing approach is to be adopted or with how many users, etc. As one can see numerous organization's take different approaches and yet achieve compliance.
Often this is based on scale of test required, time, budgets, etc.
The aim is to get more organization's to adopt accessibility. 
We should look at how to simplify the approaches.
RegardsShilpi
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> Date: 1/30/17  02:29  (GMT+05:30) To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: Re: Automated and manual testing process 
 Andrew wrote:
> What if testing cannot be done by a single person and requires user testing – does that count as manual testing, or is that something different?

We use, and I've come across quite a few variations, so to focus on the general ones I tend to see main methods as:

- Automated testing, good coverage across pages or integrated with your development, but can't positively pass a page.

- Manual review/audit, where an expert goes through a sample of pages using the guidelines. This can assess 'appropriateness' of things like alt text, headings,  markup and interactions (e.g. scripted events).

- Panel review, where a group of people with disabilities assess pages from their point of view, with the guidelines as reference. (A couple of Charity based organisations offer that in the UK, but not my favoured methodology [1]) 

- Usability testing with people with disabilities, run as a standard usability test but with allowances for different technologies etc. Tends to find the whole range of usability & accessibility issues, but coverage across a whole website/app is difficult.

- Usability testing with the general public, although not accessibility oriented will often an overlap in issues found.

I would stress that 'manual testing' must be by experts who have a wide understanding of accessibility and can balance different concerns.  
Whereas 'usability testing' must not be with people who test for a living. If they are expert in the domain, technology or accessibility then they are not typical users.

If something 'requires' multiple testers then we need to (try to) write the guideline or guidance better. (Is that the question?)

Usability is about the optimisation of an interface or experience, rather than barriers in the interface. I came from a Psychology & HCI background and started work as a Usability Consultant, I've done thousands of test sessions, but it is quite a different thing from testing accessibility...

I hope that helps, but I have a feeling there is a question behind the question!

-Alastair

1] https://alastairc.ac/2006/07/expert-usability-participants/