- From: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:07:55 -0700
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Andrew really has a point. Agents who claim to improve accessibility, really should have formal studies refereed by qualified statisticians before they claim that their products provide an effective treatment for reading disabilities. People with disabilities are constantly having ineffective accessibility enhancements and assistive technologies foisted on them with little rigorous testing. I could fill my garage with assistive products that didn't work. The key point is that the burden of proof should be on the party who claims their product is accessible or improves access, not the person with a disability. Victoria should test the effectiveness of their change on well known disability populations using independent investigators. Everybody who proposes a product that impacts a significant population should do that, and do it with serious rigor. The methodology for testing the effectiveness of a treatment is well established, but it is not practiced with IT products that claim to help people with disabilities. Today, the burden of proof is placed person with the disability who has little chance to execute a rigorous experiment. Sadly, corporations who do have the resources are not required to fund research before they launch products which make claims of accessibility. We really do need careful user centered studies that rank the effectiveness of different interventions regarding their ability to support critical life functions. For example: given people with disability group X, how do they perform activity Y using product Z. As Z ranges over all similar products, how does a particular Z' rank compared to the field on parameters like: user report on ease of use, effectiveness in completing tasks, amount of overhead needed to perform the same task and of course the ability to perform the task at a level necessary for competitive performance in the workplace. As far as I have seen, and I have looked, there is very little IT accessibility research on any product that applies formal analysis to well defined user goals. I have never seen anything approaching the quality of a clinical trial, even though the products under review claim to provide interventions for physical conditions. There have been lots of studies, but very few actually measure the treatment value of accessibility interventions at a level that is sufficient to claim effectiveness. Wayne Dick
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:08:24 UTC