W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: approval

From: Joshue O Connor CFIT <joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:33:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4F43E394.30502@ncbi.ie>
To: karl@karlgroves.com
CC: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, WAI Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Meliha Yenilmez <melihayenilmez@yahoo.com>
Karl Groves wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Joshue O Connor CFIT
> <joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie>  wrote:
>> Karl Groves wrote:
> IMO, you've already answered the question. : "All David seems to be
> saying is that usability testing with the
> widest range of users is a great way of testing your 'real world'
> accessibility."
> "Widest range of users". Lets look at what such usability testing requires:

In reality you work with who you can get. Rather than going for the 
'statistically significant' approach. Often, it's more a matter of who 
is free.

> 2) Combine the above with the logistical challenges of testing with
> PWD. [...]

Agreed, it can be a logistical nightmare but you get good as scheduling :-)

> Alternately, you can go to them.  Do you have a portable lab?

Yes, I have a mobile lab.

> This all takes a long time and a lot of effort. At the bare minimum
> you have to spend time *finding* these participants, determining the
> test tasks, scheduling the sessions, performing the sessions,
> collating the notes gathered from the sessions, etc. etc.  This type
> of effort is not free.  Even if you do all of this stuff in-house
> using in-house participants you still have actual time spent doing
> this work by employees.  Their fully actualized cost is real money out
> of their employer's pockets.

For sure, but well spent. Yes, at the moment user testing is kinda 
elitist. I wrote a paper about that very thing, making this same point 
for those interested. [1]

> I won't argue that usability testing is the hands-down best way to
> know whether real people can successfully perform tasks on a system.


> What I will argue is that gathering accessibility data with usability
> studies is inefficient and there are plenty of other methods that
> should be utilized first.

Absolutely, but doing user testing should be encouraged. The gains are many.



[1] http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1427016.1427060

Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ncbiworkingforpeoplewithsightloss
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ncbi_sightloss

Check-out NCBI's Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh appeal on the following link. 

National Council for the Blind of Ireland (NCBI) is a company 
limited by guarantee (registered in Ireland No. 26293) .
Our registered office is at Whitworth Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
NCBI is also a registered Charity (chy4626). 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments 
is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of 
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify 
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to 
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated 
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, 
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are 
transmitted.  We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent the views of NCBI

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 18:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:38 UTC