[Draft] Requirements/Analysis and Changelog for "Involving Users in Web Development"

Latest draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/involving/
Related published document: "Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation"
Draft revision of Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation

This Changelog is an update of "Requirements and Changelog for 'Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation", for the predecessor to this document.

About "Involving Users"

This document will provide an overview of including people with disabilities and older people throughout Web design and development processes. It builds on the existing document “Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation”, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/users.html

Scope

Will:

be a broad introduction for including users throughout the process (with examples)
motivate and encourage developers to get some users involved with a few simple steps
explain why including users is so important (to help developers avoid providing well-meant but wrong solutions
show that it can be done on a small, informal scale (but that there are professionals who can assist)
identify where people are likely to mess up and provide some pointers to help them get it right (or examples)
point to external resources for more details
encourage adoption of a user-centered design process

Will not:

cover fine detail on involving users in every aspect of the 'development lifecycle'
be a step-by-step 'how to' for usability testing nor a comprehensive resource for usability testing with participants with disabilities

Note: The focus is real live users but should point to references that say more about general consideration of accessibility earlier.

Purpose, Goals, Objectives

Rationale:

Many Web developers do not involve users in the design process. Even those who do involve users, rarely include people with disabilities or older users.
There are many benefits of including users, especially older users and people with disabilities, in the development process from the beginning of the project.
Bringing users into the process from the early stages helps designers and developers better understand accessibility issues and better implement effective accessibility solutions. It also encourages early incorporation of accessibility solutions, rather than trying to make adjustments at the end of the development process that are often more difficult to implement
Understanding users' needs should also reduce user complaints

Objective:

Provide basic information to help designers and developers get started with including people with disabilities and older users at all stages of Web design and development
Encourage developers to involve users early and often
Encourage developers to do whatever they can - reminding them that informal involvement of users is more useful than no involvement

Notes:

Broaden the scope of the existing document from evaluation only to include/discuss all stages of the development process
Ensure that older users are specifically included in the document

Audience

Primary audience:

Web developers (designers, coders, etc.) who want to create accessible websites
Website purchasers/procurers & project managers - want to know "how and when to bring in users"
Standards developers and policy developers [maybe not specifically address, but make the beginning information generic enough that it clearly applies]
Browser and user agents developers

Secondary audience:

Anyone interested in better understanding the basics of involving users with disabilities in Web development - including educators, researchers, decision makers, accessibility professionals, professional evaluators
Users who are interested to participate in the development process (and may want to approach an organization to ask to be involved)
Content authors - understanding how people use their content will help write better, provide better alt-text, better links, etc
Usability professionals who want to improve the accessibility of the websites they work on [action: leave this one out of consideration until we have a useful document for developers and others, and then we can see how best to address something to this group]

A couple of scenarios to keep in mind:

small local business eg takeaway restaurant, developing a first site or first replacement site. Both developer and business owner may be relatively inexperienced at web development. This is a chance to review similar types of sites, to look for examples of good practice, look for different formats and contents. You need to consider what kind of tasks and activities, what information needs, and are there different strategies for providing the same information eg a static timetable vs an interactive query system, or different approaches to content management. Review of own site – might include any complaints and observing some real people doing typical tasks in a variety of contexts. Consider alternative use scenarios eg using a shared access machine in a library or senior citizen club, a person using zoomed text, a screen reader or non-mouse entry. If using multimedia what would be the experience of a person who is blind or hearing impaired.
medium sized company or service provider – The previous site may have been running 2-3 years and evolved overtime. The IT department is an 'operator' not a developer and engages a professional web developer to upgrade existing system. This is a chance to review existing site, check out any record of complaints. Identify weaknesses in structural design and formats by observing invited users attempting typical tasks and less common tasks. Pay particular attention to issues identified in WCAG 2.0 guidelines that may result in barriers or reduced efficiency related to perception, operation and understanding. Seek out users with different profiles and accessibility needs who can help to specify critical requirements for the new site.

Notes

Size:
- less than 3?4?5 printed pages
Incorporate into Implementation Plan for Web Accessibility on completion
see Archive below for previous wish-list and considerations (may need expanding with respect to older users)

Open issues

title of the two documents OK?

References

WAI-AGE task force and EOWG Discussions:

External references:

Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design (Henry) - www.uiaccess.com/accessucd/
Bringing Accessibility into the Development Process - basic early not ucd
The Lifecycle of Web Accessibility (Antonio Volpon evolt 2002) - @@
Usability Testing Demystified (Dana Chisnell 2009) - good, short summary
Testing in the Wild, Seizing Opportunity (Chisnell) - www.uie.com/articles/testing_in_wild/share/
Discount Usability: 20 Years (Jacob Nielsen) - www.useit.com/alertbox/discount-usability.html
User testing (NCBI/CFIT) - www.cfit.ie/user-testing
User testing for accessibility (RNIB) - http://tinyurl.com/yz2w5o6
Conducting user evaluations with people with disabilities (IBM)
- www-03.ibm.com/able/resources/userevaluations.html
User Testing: How to Involve Users in Technical Web Development (ICCHP)
- www.springerlink.com/content/r581r1v71244l62w/
Focus groups vs. usability testing (Webcredible)
- www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-usability/focus-vs-testing.shtml
Getting the Right Participants (HFI) - www.humanfactors.com/downloads/whitepapers.asp#UT
and thousands more, including those listed at Usable Web, Usability and User Experience Resources, Web Design References: Usability, User Centered Design Resources, etc...

Changelog

Note: See "Previous Changelog" for 2005 meeting minutes and e-mail comments.

12 Nov New Doc

deleted first paragraph: "A key aspect of designing for usability is including users throughout project development. [Similarly|Likewise], a key aspect of successfully designing for accessibility is including users with disabilities throughout project development."

26 October Eval Doc

title "Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation" to Web Accessibility Evaluation with Users

22 October 2009

Added structure and notes to the draft document in preparation for EO discussion
Updated Requirements in light of TF (21/Oct/09) discussion

20 October 2009

Drafting of introduction
Discussion from TF (20/May/09 & 01/Jul/09) incorporated for discussion
External references noted above

25 June 2009

Requirements document (this document) updated to become more structured
Initial opportunities flagged in DRAFT - Involving Users in Web Development for TF discussion

11 May 2009

Requirements document (this document) updated to reflect TF discussion at 6 May 2009 teleconf

28 January 2009

Requirements document (this document) updated to reflect EOWG & TF discussion at October 2008 meeting
Actions from October 2008 EOWG & TF meeting:
- amend 1st bullet from 'designing for Web accessibility' to more simply 'web design' -- also throughout, e.g., the title [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action02]
- change sub bullet 1 to 'introduce the concept of including users at all stages of your design and development process (from the start to the end)' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action03]
- under the cautions bullet, mention that users aren't necessarily experts with solutions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action04]
- consider (at some point) "usability testing" or "user testing" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action05]
- make sure the requirements title and intro refers to this as an update/evolution of the existing 'involving users' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action06]
- change 'usability testing professionals' to 'usability professionals' in audience note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action07]
- consider adding a subsection on "Benefits" which would probably include the current 2nd, 3rd, 4th paragraphs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action19]
- requirements:
  - audience:
    - include usability professionals in primary audience and see if we can write for both (but be willing to relegate them if it doesn't work) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action08]
    - include educators along with usability professionals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action09]
    - separate educators as it's own secondary audience (as they are teaching/guiding not doing) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action10]
    - secondary audience - include accessibility professionals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action11]
  - 'encourage' - change sub bullet to be more positive, and mention earlier involvement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action12]
  - 'encourage 2' - drop "in user testing" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action13]
  - 'cautions' bullet - add: try to introduce them in a positive language; subtract "most serious" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action14]
  - consider adding "time of reading" to constrain the length, e.g. 1 hour [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action15]
  - ditch "more to encourage ..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action16]
  - change "move resource from E to I ..." to a note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action17]
  - consider whether this applies to web content developers only, or broader to include authoring tools, browsers, etc. (further discussions on the document may clarify this) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-eo-minutes.html#action18

Site Navigation