- From: phoenixl <phoenixl@sonic.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:35:53 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi, Phill One of the standard usability test methodologies is called "thinking aloud". I've found doing distance usability "thinking aloud" testing via conference call of blind / visually impaired subjects working with web pages to be quite informative. In general, conducting research in a usability lab where a blind person needs their access technology can result in unclear results. The blind person should be tested using their access technology they use in their daily life and with the configuration they've fine tuned for their needs. Often they cannot readily bring their equipment to usability labs. As a result, it becomes much harder to accurately determine when there is a problem with the subject understanding the access technology or with the interface/application being tested. An analogy from my life would be that I am a quadriplegic who drives a modified van. I have no problems passing driver's test when using my van. However, if I had to use a vehicle I'm not familiar with and which has not been configured to me, the chances are that I would probably crush anything in my way the first time I try to turn. With regards to field methodology, in the particular case of a blind subject using web pages via access technology, it is not clear that there is always enough to visually observe. I've seen usability people kind of go into shock at this thought, but the reality is that unless the tester has highly familiar with both the subject's access technology and also how the subject has configured the access technology, the usability person ends up repeatedly asking what the blind person is doing with the various keystrokes controlling the access technology. One benefit of the methodology is that it minimizes the travel and set up for field observations. (This is especially important in these days of sever budget constraints.) A second benefit is that people can be at various locations nationally and still participate. I've done usability testing of web pages based in DC with participants in NYC, Chicago, LA, Dallas without costs of plane travel. No one methodology is perfect, but the quality of the information as compared to the cost/resources expended makes it very attractive in this very specific case of blind subjects using web pages via their personal technology access. There are some other benefits to the methodology. One of the other benefits is that the observers are given the opportunity to understand better the personal experiences of blind people using the web pages. Statistics can sometimes create distance between the experiences of subjects and the people seeking out the understanding. The experience of observers' listening to blind people's use of web pages can also become motivating forces. After one "talking aloud" session via a conference call, a programmer told me that if he were a blind person having those experiences with web pages, he would be absolutely outraged. The experience strongly motivated him to rethink some of his methodologies. Scott
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 11:35:59 UTC