Re: approval

Testing to meet guidelines, and tedting to meet testers eyes (good and bad) 
are both expensive in time and money.
   How about throwing the product out on rhe web and inviting criticism and 
providing easy feedback?
Let the public help.  Go where the disabled visit and ask for their help. 
Try AFB.org's Technology Talk Message Board or the one for AccessWorld.
CCLVI has screen reader users.  MDSupport ought to provide some.

I doubt that you will be flooded with volunteers, but it might be a useful 
outreach effort.  After all, you are the people we hate.  Enlist us !!!

===gm===



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Groves" <karl@karlgroves.com>
To: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Cc: "WAI Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>; "Meliha Yenilmez" 
<melihayenilmez@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: approval


| On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:02 PM, David Woolley
| <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
|
| > To find out if it is actually accessible, you need to find people with 
lots
| > of different disabilities and perform a usability survey on them, 
allowing
| > them to use their own browsers and any assistive technology that they 
use.
|
| Do you do this?  Really?
|
| With all due respect, this is exactly the type of attitude that
| perpetuates the impression that accessibility is nebulous, expensive,
| and difficult.
|
| It would be wonderful to be able to test with real users, but such a
| thing is often not feasible due to time, budget, or resource
| constraints.  Considering the other types of testing available that
| can be used to gather accessibility data, doing usability testing
| should be reserved for cases where other test approaches (that are
| often quicker, cheaper, and easier anyway) have already been utilized.
|
| Karl
|

Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 23:55:50 UTC