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

+1 to looking into inclusive design methodologies in Silver.  “I'm keen for the group to really look at ways to effectively integrate this and other important inclusive design methodologies into future guidelines.”

From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 5:08 AM
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)

Thanks Lisa, and just for the record. I do have a better understanding of what you and JF were getting at and they are good points. Many thanks to Alistair for breaking it down for me :-)

However, I would still be very cautious about limiting how we try to recommend or mandate when people should do testing - even when they find exemptions or feel they need to in order to satisfy a success criteria. However, at the moment I'd rather this was implicit rather that explicit.

<chair hat off>

It is interesting as this whole thread does illustrate the importance/value of user testing to catch things that manual or automated testing can just miss. Accessibility and usability are not mutually exclusive. I'm keen for the group to really look at ways to effectively integrate this and other important inclusive design methodologies into future guidelines.

</chair hat off>

Josh


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><mailto: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