Re: International Web Access Guidelines “Ineffective”, PhD thesis Claims

OK

But what you cite seems to reinforce what I was saying.     Quoting your quote of Nielson"
"just because a design is theoretically accessible, doesn't mean that it's easy to use, simple to learn, or supports efficient job performance.” 

 Perhaps you misread my message.  Perhaps I didn’t express it well.    But this is in keeping with what I was saying.   If you define "ability to effectively use something" as 'accessibility to a person'  (or at least as our goal), then both accessibility (things that disproportionately affect usability by people with disability) and   'non-accessibility aspects of usability)  are important.      Note that I didn’t say "usability" as something that can exist as wholly separate from accessibility  (e.g.  Accessibility and usability here  because there is so much overlap.  MANY things that make something accessible (technically or otherwise) also make them more usable by all.    In fact 'accessibility' is just usability by a subgroup of the whole population where there are some things this group needs that others do not and some things that everyone needs.    

 For technical and legal reasons, WCAG only covers those parts that are only needed by (or disproportionately needed by) people with disabilities.  But this does not mean that these same people don't also need the same things needed by everyone else.      Is this better worded?


you also quote Freire:
> Default presentation of text not adequate. He's telling us that the "elasticity of contents" we've achieved (and Freire spoke us about a lot of transformations operated by the participants with low vision) is not what users with low vision need.

I think if you add ONLY     "is not THE ONLY THING users with low vision need"     it works.

But I don't think you will find many people with low vision that don't think "elasticity of contents" features like word wrapping and font adjustability to not be important needs of people with low vision.   

And without that qualification....   the statement is ambiguous and seems to imply that "elasticity of contents" isn't useful.   Perhaps it is just a poorly worded sentence, or one that is not intended to be quoted out of context.    In context it might clearly imply that  "elasticity of contents" isn't sufficient by itself.    It is always dangerous to quote out of context.   It is even dangerous - as pointed out in my previous post - to quote the abstract or conclusions of a paper or thesis without carefully reading the methodology, actual data, and how the data are analyzed.     Otherwise research is like statistics.  If you want to find something that supports your position you just need to look around and you will find it.      The key is not looking at any one piece of information but the overall body of evidence.    


That said,  something we ALL need to do continually is to re-examine what we "know" and look at new evidence.   And the longer you are around (me) the more you need to always be questioning 'what we've always known'.     It might be because it is truth.   It might be because we have convinced ourselves that it is - so we 'see the world through tinted glasses'.    But this also happens with newer researchers.     

At any rate - interesting discussion.   have to jump off for awhile.   Big backlog of work. 

Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net

On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Jorge Fernandes <jorge.f@netcabo.pt> wrote:

> Hi Gregg,
> 
>> Usability is critical to accessibility.   In fact Accessibility is just a dimension of Usability. 
> From my experience with the WCAG implementation and also as user, I have difficulty to accept this assumption.
> 
> IMO, the implementation of WCAG improve the "elasticity of contents" to answer to the user needs (gracefully transformation of contents like state in the introduction of WCAG 1.0 and POUR in the way of WCAG 2.0). In the WCAG 2.0 I have more the notion of a user like User Agent (an abstract machine user or an abstract human user). With the implementation of WCAG we have the hope to open the door to usability to people/"machines" with special needs. If usability happen, is another thing… Thus, change a little bit your words, I could say that accessibility is critical to usability. When WAI/W3C give you (like content editor) the opportunity to put a textual alternative in an attribute of the <img> element of HTML, they are giving you the opportunity (degree of freedom) to turn your content more elastic. Imagine that the WAI/W3C don't had this attribute in HTML? It will be an accessible problem with reflections in usability.
> 
> Nielsen said something that we could interpret by the existence of two steps: “Once we've achieved technical accessibility, our new goal must be task support and increased usability of websites and intranets for people with disabilities. (…) just because a design is theoretically accessible, doesn't mean that it's easy to use, simple to learn, or supports efficient job performance.” [1]. In principle we want that the cause/consequence happen.
> 
> I like your short and maybe more math expression definition to accessibility. (in)Accessibility is related to discriminating against people with disabilities, and this could happen when usability slower of PwithD is greater than PwithoutD. In the same article [1] Nielsen said “We focused on design usability, aiming to identify which design elements slowed users down”. 
> 
> Like I'm also a partially sighted, I start by reading the findings of Freire's thesis by Partially Sighted (section 4.3), and I stop here:
> 
> "(…) Different comparisons between the severity of problems encountered by partially sighted users and the other groups showed that the severity was higher for partially sighted users." (Freire, :103). In Nielsen study [1] the low vision users had committed 2x more errors - a surprise to the authors - than blind users.
> 
> Why this relative pour performance of low vision people happen?
> 
> Personally, I review myself, particularly (without mitigating the others), in the follow finding of Freire: Default presentation of text not adequate. He's telling us that the "elasticity of contents" we've achieved (and Freire spoke us about a lot of transformations operated by the participants with low vision) is not what users with low vision need.
> 
> This kind of findings need to be used to foster, in any way, the WCAG, ATAG, UAAG and all related support documentation … to improve what we called the technical accessibility.
> 
> 
> [1] 
> Nielsen, J. (2001). Beyond Accessibility: Treating Users with Disabilities as People. Alertbox, November. Consulted in 27 April 2003 at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011111.html.
> 
> 
> --Jorge Fernandes
> 
> A 01/06/2013, às 19:52, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> escreveu:
> 
>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Jorge Fernandes <jorge.f@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>>> A recent published PhD thesis of York University [1] wrote the follow statement in the abstract:
>>> "Comparisons between user problems and WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 did not show any significant relationship between user-based measures of accessibility and most measures based on technical guidelines."
>>> I have difficulty mostly to understand what this kind of statements means.
>>> - it's means that there aren't significative relationship between WCAG and user problems? or;
>>> - it's means that there aren't significative relationship between WCAG and the way we are trying to measure the WCAG? 
>>> [1]  Freire, André Pimenta. (2012). Disabled people and the Web: User-based measurement of accessibility. PhD thesis, University of York.
>>> http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3873/
>>> Jorge Fernandes
>> 
>> Hi Jorge, 
>> 
>> Not sure - but It sounds like it says that there is not significant relationship between what users think is accessible and what WCAG (a technical guideline) says is accessible.
>> 
>> Of course unless you look at the study - you don't know what the data really say -- or if they were collected properly etc.  So I would read the whole thesis before drawing  any conclusions.
>> 
>> I find it hard to believe that there is no relationship between WCAG conformance and usability by people who are blind for example. 
>> 
>> ---
>> On a related note...
>> 
>> I also read a study that showed that conforming to WCAG didn’t make a page usable by PWD (or to anyone).   What they were looking at was pages that were basically badly designed and unusable (or very poor usability) by everyone -- and WCAG didn’t fix the pages.      This is no surprise since one of the precepts in WCAG was that it only focus on things that were a problem ONLY for people with disabilities - or that affect them in greatly disproportionate wasy.    That is WCAG was restrictued to focusing on "accessibility" (discriminating against people with disabilities)  vs general usability (bad design in general for all users)  problems.        The moral here is that if pages aren't usable in general -- they will never be very usable by people with disabilities -- since they must navigate the non-usability through reduced access.     So to make pages usable by people with disabilities,  make them both usable by all and WCAG conformant. 
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> One that had me thinking was another study that showed that certain usability problems slowed users WITHOUT disabilities down by X seconds  but it slowed people who were blind down by (I think it was)  5x seconds.      This sounded like disproportionate - and an accessibility problem.   Then elsewhere in the paper it reported that these same subject who were blind took  5 times as long to complete all of their tasks.     So this made me think.    If it slowed regular uses down by  Y%  and it slowed blind users down by the same Y%    (the blind users taking 5 times longer in general)  then maybe it wasn’t disproportionate because is slowed everyone down by the same percent.   Now I had two different conclusions from the same data.   
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> At any rate - a few things seem clear to me.
>> 
>> Usability is critical to accessibility.   In fact Accessibility is just a dimension of Usability.   It is Usability to certain groups.   Is the page easily used, hard to use, or unusable.   Pages can be all three for people with and without disabilities.   An advanced Genetics site for example may be completely unusable by anyone without advance genetics background.   And in a way it does discriminate against all of us who do not understand advanced genetics.  But this is legal.  It is only illegal to discriminate (make pages that cannot be used - or used effectively) by people on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, and with the ADA, disability  (If you are among those that think the ADA was intended to include all public places including the Internet - even though the internet was not such a common public place when the ADA was written so was not mentioned specifically).   But whether you believe this or the opposite,  a page that is unusable can't be made usable by just fixing the parts that are a problem ONLY for people with disabilities (WCAG).  The rest of the unusable still remains. 
>> 
>> WCAG conformance does not make things accessible to all.  In fact is says this right in the WCAG intro.   WCAG should be thought of not as making things accessible,  but as a minimum accessibility standard.  Not the end of what one should do but the beginning.     Even doing all three levels (which can be very hard on some specific types of pages) will not make pages that everyone with every type, degree and combination of disabilities can use.   The advisory techniques are a good place to start to look for more things that can be done.  Then read books and papers on still more.  Finally, work side by side with people who have disabilities (a wide variety) and come to understand the disabilities and the impact of web design on them.   There are so many things that can be done in the design of a specific web site -- to make it more USABLE by people with disabilities;  things that cannot be boiled down to rules and are different from site to site or type of page to different type of page. 
>> 
>> We need to READ papers and understand them.   We can't just pull conclusions from them.  People who do research know that in all fields there is an amazing number (and percent) of papers published that state conclusions that are not supported by their data and design.  This is not done out of malice by authors -- just oversight or weak design.   Good research is very hard to do.  And doing it in areas that have direct implications on daily life I even harder (extremely difficult)  to do in a controlled and valid way.    Really good papers are actually relatively rare overall and rarer in areas of applied research.   
>> By the way this is no comment on this particular thesis !   I have not had the time to read it -- so make no comment on it specifically !    (though I am going to pull a copy and try to read it this summer to see what is to be learned from his work). 
>> 
>> 
>> ciao 
>> 
>> Gregg
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>  
>