Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)

> Wayne Dick <mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com>
> 16 February 2017 at 06:00
> I agree with you Lisa. The old WCAG did not study cognitive 
> disabilities enough to determine how to test ways to overcome 
> barriers. [...]
> I too find the current AG process frustrating. The group never 
> considered Cognitive and LV disabilities with the necessary care in 
> the past to solve the real problems. 
I hear what you are saying, and appreciate this is frustrating - but we 
are doing our best now Wayne to do this and effectively fold this work 
into 2.1. Actually, it's you, Jim and the team who are doing this with 
the sterling work in the LVTF, Lisa in COGA, Kathy and Kim in MATF and 
whole collective effort.

The degree of success we achieve with 2.1 is  constrained by the 
existing architecture and requirements of WCAG 2.0. I hope e'one can 
work effectively within that limitation and appreciate there is no 
tabula rasa for 2.1.

For 3.0/Silver etc that will be different and there will be outcomes and 
lessons learned from 2.1 that I'm hopeful will form the bedrock for a 
new modus. In terms of the accessibility standards project/framework 
needing to change and adapt to meet the changing needs of people with 
disabilities, I totally agree.

Existing standards should not represent a barrier to effective progress 
and I'm certainly open to understanding how we can effectively develop 
new testing conformance/methods and integrate them into future guidelines.

Thanks

Josh

> This is witnessed by their inadequate framework for testing barriers 
> for these disabilities.  They are imposing differential standards to 
> these disability groups because they are not looking for new testing 
> methods for a new type of problem. If the old testing techniques do 
> not work, then a proven barrier to access are left in place.
>
> Grappling with and solving the real needs of people with LV and 
> Cognitive disabilities is a test for the legitimacy of the AG working 
> group as a leader in accessibility guidelines. If guidelines and test 
> procedures cannot be expanded to accurately identify insurmountable 
> barriers for people in these disability groups, then the disability 
> community will have to look to other leadership for developing 
> accessibility standards.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Yes I can see how small sample user testing techniques need to be 
> built by organizations the claim to test for accessibility.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> lisa.seeman <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> 15 February 2017 at 19:20
> Hi folks
> At the risk of shooting my self in the foot but ... to enable us to 
> move on
>
> Does anyone else see this as an issue. If I am the only one with a 
> problem with it, then I will conseed to consensus, rewrite the 
> exceptions that depend on it,  and we can move on.
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:24:07 +0200 *Joshue O 
> Connor<josh@interaccess.ie>* wrote ----
>
>
> Joshue O Connor <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>
> 15 February 2017 at 16:24
> Hi John,
>
> Fair point or not, I don't at this point feel the need to go thru 
> another CFC that allows or does not allow user testing in situation x, 
> or to limit it under exception y. I'm not fully clear on the 
> implication of doing such a thing, nor am I clear on the reason why we 
> might. You seem to be, which is cool :-)
>
> My main concern at the moment, is that we cannot make user testing a 
> requirement in 2.1. End of story. However, I don't want to wrangle our 
> spec to stop people from testing or imply that that cannot do it under 
> situation A or B. People can test all they like, in any situation, if 
> they wish to as far as I'm concerned.
>
> As I stated - at the moment, I feel I just don't fully grok some of 
> the points being made here but even with that aside - the original CFC 
> was clear IMO.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
> John Foliot <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> 15 February 2017 at 15:58
> Chairs,
>
> Lisa has a fair point.
>
> Can I request that a second CfC go out that explicitly states that "we 
> should not allow user testing in exceptions" - for the same reasons 
> that user-testing for conformance was rejected?
>
> This way we can be sure that the consensus has been recorded properly 
> and accurately, and everyone understands what they are registering 
> their position on.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie