w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire "Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities" - EOWG Review 2
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: shawn@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2020-12-17 to 2021-01-19.
11 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- About this Review and Survey
- COGA Appendix: Business... Aging... Market - In?
- COGA Appendix: Business... Aging... Market - Edits?
- EOWG Business Case Resources
- COGA Usability Testing - In?
- COGA Usability Testing - Edits?
- EOWG Usability Testing / Involving Users Resources
1. About this Review and Survey
Summary: We need more specific input on a couple sections of the COGA doc, and a few related EOWG resources.
If you have limited time, please focus first on the questions that start with "COGA".
EOWG previously reviewed the Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities ("Content Usable") draft Working Group Note. EOWG had fairly extensive comments. From followup discussions with the COGA TF Facilitators/Editors and EOWG Co-Chairs and Staff, we would like additional input from EOWG, particularly related to:
- Usability Testing section
- Business Case section
This survey asks you to provide input on:
- Any additional perspectives on leaving or removing those sections? (Feel free to repeat or restate your input from previous comments or minutes.)
- If those sections stay in the Content Usable document, what edits to do you suggest?
- What might we want to add to existing EOWG Resources related to usability testing, business case, or other to better cover cognitive issues?
COGA is trying to publish a first version in February, and hopes to make additional updates in a later version. To help them prioritize, please indicate each comment with [!!], [med], or [low]:
- [!!] very important to be addressed before first version published
- [med] medium importance to be addressed in first or later version
- [low] low importance
Please put substantive issues in this survey (as opposed to minor copy edits). Feel free to put questions for EOWG to discuss. If you have suggestions for minor copy edits, please submit them as a pull request (edit), GitHub issue, or e-mail public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org.
Background info:
- August Survey Results
- minutes: 14 Aug, 21 Aug, 28 Aug
- EOWG submitted comments September (docx)
- EOWG comments with initial draft COGA reply (google doc)(viewing tip: in the toolbar, select the drop-down arrow after 100% and select "Fit".):
(COGAs tracking (google doc))
Excerpts:
EOWG has also worked hard to avoid covering topics in multiple places on the W3C website. Instead, we seek to put the information in one place, and point to it there from other places where it is relevant.
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Laura Keen | |
| Jennifer Chadwick | I recall providing comments prior and am satisfied with any changes or updates that have been made due to the overall feedback. |
| Jason McKee | |
| Kris Anne Kinney | |
| Vicki Menezes Miller | |
| Dónal Rice | |
| Andrew Arch | |
| Howard Kramer | |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | |
| Kevin White | Initial focus is on the usability testing session as there are some real legal and ethical risks in including this content as written in the document. I will try to look at the other topics as well if I have time. |
| Estella Oncins |
2. COGA Appendix: Business... Aging... Market - In?
summary | by responder | by choice
Section in Content Usable: Appendix D: Business Considerations and The Aging Population as a Market
EOWG suggests removing this appendix, at least for the first round of publication, since:
- it is still in development and,
- the topic of a Business Case for accessibility is not centrally relevant to this technical guidance.
As well, the Business Case for accessibility is covered robustly and through broad consensus in WAI resources, including mention of the Aging Market. For example, in the Business Case section on increased market share, two of the four bullets refer to aging markets and older users.
EOWG suggests an idea that COGA editors could add 1-3 sentences in the "Content Usable" doc to highlight the relevance for cognitive accessibility and then point to the following EOWG Resources: The Business Case for Digital Accessibility and Older Users and Web Accessibility
If any of the choices below align with your opinion, please use the checkboxes to register your position on the question of Appendix D. Feel free to add additional comments.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I strongly agree that the Appendix is not centrally relevant and is not needed since the topic is more fully covered elsewhere. | 5 |
| I mildly agree that this section is not relevant or useful here. | 2 |
| Neutral. | 1 |
| I feel mildly that this section should remain in this document. | |
| I feel strongly that this section should remain in this document. | 1 |
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | COGA Appendix: Business... Aging... Market - In? | Rationale and Perspectives |
|---|---|---|
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Jennifer Chadwick |
|
Since this is official documentation from a standards body and a trusted resource on accessibility guidance - globally - I feel it's important to cover the aspect of business cases and have this information readily available and present in the document. "Business cases" are not only for private companies, but public sector as well. We can keep the name as "Business" case as many practitioners, stakeholders and advocates in private corporations need ammunition for their fight for digital accessibility - however, this is also arguable as being sorely needed in public sector practice as well. This enables people to review confirmed research, quickly accessed - and set to a level of importance with its own Appendix - on this reference page. |
| Jason McKee |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
I would prefer them to make a few notes about the Business case but then link to our EO resource, rather than develop their own section in the TR. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
I strongly suggest pointing to the EOWG Resources mentioned above. |
| Dónal Rice | ||
| Andrew Arch |
|
Maybe COGA could make suggestions for updates to 'Older web users and accessibility' |
| Howard Kramer |
|
On the fence on this one. It's probably not needed but it's very short. !! Links to the 2 EOWG resources above should definitely be added. |
| Shawn Lawton Henry |
|
|
| Kevin White | ||
| Estella Oncins |
|
I strongly agree to make reference to EOWG resources "The Business Case for Digital Accessibility" and "Older Users and Web Accessibility" as aging should not be considered as a market. Also provided references might be limited as relevant international organisations such as WHO provide indepth views on this subject: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I strongly agree that the Appendix is not centrally relevant and is not needed since the topic is more fully covered elsewhere. |
|
| I mildly agree that this section is not relevant or useful here. |
|
| Neutral. |
|
| I feel mildly that this section should remain in this document. | |
| I feel strongly that this section should remain in this document. |
|
3. COGA Appendix: Business... Aging... Market - Edits?
Section in Content Usable: Appendix: Business Considerations and The Aging Population as a Market
If this section stays, what input do you have for potential changes? (remember to indicate each comment with [!!] or [med] or [low])
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Laura Keen | [!!] There should be links added to cross reference EOWG Resources: The Business Case for Digital Accessibility and Older Users and Web Accessibility |
| Jennifer Chadwick | [med] - any links to specific research into the two bullet points (e.g. a 7.1 trillion-dollar growth market and a secondary market of high potential millennials impaired by learning disabilities and related situational impairments) - links to any particular success stories from corporations or organizations/advocacy groups who specialise in user research to support this. |
| Jason McKee | |
| Kris Anne Kinney | If it stays, you need to give a few more bullets about the business case, possibly following closely to the summary on the EO business case page. Having something so minimal makes a poor argument for the business case. So either just link to the EO case or reiterate the summary from EO and then link to the full EO article. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller | Add the links to the EOWG Resources mentioned above. (!!) |
| Dónal Rice | Low - editorial: "More consumers are older, and more of the wealth is in the control [of] an older demographic" Med: editorial: Change in emphasis is needed - "...underserviced end-users such as high net worth senior citizens:" - I suggest rephrasing to emphasise the guidance applies to all/most senior citizens, many of whom have a high net worth. Med: editorial: Structure of the following sentence/bullet list is unclear- "...needs of underserviced end-users such as high net worth senior citizens: •a 7.1 trillion-dollar growth market and" - does the 7.1 trillion dollar growth market refer to all or some older people? Is this globally? It's a great stat - could a reference to it be added? |
| Andrew Arch | [!!] drop as not relevant to guidance provided. Just mention that cognitive impairments increase with age early in the background. |
| Howard Kramer | [med] As per my comments above, I'm on the fence because the section is short. Maybe if they tied it more to the material in EOWG's business case resource, such as talking about how transcripts helped "This American Life" and then linked to that section of the resource it could be improved. |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | |
| Kevin White | |
| Estella Oncins | !! as mentioned in the previous comment cross-reference to existing EOWG resources should be provided. Both groups could benefit. Readers would better benefit form the extended COGA document and will be more reader friendly for users interested in how to make content usable for people with cognitive and learning disabilities. |
4. EOWG Business Case Resources
What might we want to add to or edit better cover cognitive issues in following EOWG Resources:
- The Business Case for Digital Accessibility, particularly the Increase Market Reach section
- Older Users and Web Accessibility
- other resources related to this topic?
What changes might we want to make now, and what might we want to queue up for working on with COGA TF when they are available?
Best if you add a new GitHub issue for Business Case or new GitHub issue for Older Users, then put the link to that issue in this survey. Though, comments below are OK.
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Laura Keen | |
| Jennifer Chadwick | See above - definitely want to leverage extensive research in this area with real users (seniors, youth with cognitive needs who use the web heavily for education and socializing). |
| Jason McKee | |
| Kris Anne Kinney | We don't specifically call out any other category of disabilities in the Market Reach section - the only thing I can see us adding is possibly a bullet about situational disabilities as they mention in their appendix. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller | |
| Dónal Rice | Med: I think adding some of the stats on market growth and reference to Georgia State University's Center for Mature Consumer Studies work already included Appendix D would be helpful |
| Andrew Arch | 'Older Users' should reference the COGA documentation for addressing cognitive issues |
| Howard Kramer | 1. Maybe add something about how captions assist those with cognitive disabilities - see https://www.3playmedia.com/blog/developmental-disabilities-auditory-sensitivities-headaches-more-how-captions-can-help/ for example. |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | |
| Kevin White | |
| Estella Oncins |
5. COGA Usability Testing - In?
summary | by responder | by choice
Section in Content Usable: Usability Testing, Focus Groups and Feedback (5.1-5.4.1)
EOWG suggested removing most of this section, at least for the first round of publication. EOWG comments included:
Most of Section 5 is either already covered in existing WAI resources or was deemed beyond the scope of what W3C/WAI resources should cover. Usability testing is a large topic – whole books are written on it. Including participants with disabilities in usability testing is a big topic – multi-page resources are written on it.
WAI previously decided that it was important to provide a resource on the WAI website that introduced and strongly encouraged including users, e.g., in usability testing -- and that we would briefly introduce the most important points, and not cover other issues or the topic in general. (References: Analysis/Requirements and Changelog for “Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation and Requirements/Analysis and Changelog for Involving Users in Web Development)
The draft of section 5 goes beyond what WAI determined was in W3C’s scope. Additionally, there would be several problems with extending the scope to include this information. For example, Section 5.3 Informed Consent does not use common terminology, does not cover important issues, and has information that some usability professionals might disagree with.
Note: EOWG did not comment on 5.5 Test Objectives directly related to testing the guidance in the main document.
EOWG suggests that COGA editors could add 1-3 sentences in the "Content Usable" doc to highlight issues related to users with cognitive disabilities and point to:
- Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility, an established, vetted W3C WAI EOWG Resource
- Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility, an established, vetted W3C WAI EOWG Resource
- maybe WAI EOWG Resource Planning and Managing Web Accessibility, an established, vetted W3C WAI EOWG Resource
- [additionally] well vetted resources from https://www.easyreading.eu/downloas/
If any of the choices below align with your opinion, please use one or more checkboxes to indicate your position on Section 5.1-5.4.1.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I support including this type and level of information in the Content Usable document, even though it goes against EOWG's previous decisions, because of the rationale in the comments below. | 2 |
| I would be OK including this information in the Content Usable document only if it includes a clear disclaimer. | |
| I would be OK including this information in the Content Usable document only with the [!!] edits below. | |
| Neutral. | 1 |
| I do not support including this type and level of information in the Content Usable document, based on EOWG's previous comments &/or additional comments below. | 8 |
| I have significant concerns with the information as is. Before it is published, the issues need broader consideration and the guidance vetted with experts and practitioners. | 3 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | COGA Usability Testing - In? | Rationale and Perspectives |
|---|---|---|
| Laura Keen |
|
I agree with the EOWG comments above. |
| Jennifer Chadwick |
|
|
| Jason McKee |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
This is a LOT of information, and I don't know that Usability testing should be part of a document about how to make content accessible. It's an important part of the process, but this is too much information here and I think it would be overwhelming. I think they need to link to the EO resource OR make this a whole different resource entirely as an "after you have taken these design considerations into account, you need to do usability testing with people with disabilities - links to the EO resource". BUT if it stays its own document, it really needs to be vetted with experts before it's published, which is why I picked both check boxes. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
|
| Dónal Rice |
|
low: referencing error in "•Use the design patterns as described in section 3" - is this not now Section 4? From my perspective - as an advisor to other government bodies - this content is really useful - particularly as we move towards implementing the Web Accessibility Directive within the EU. I suggest leaving the content on user testing - its practical. Section 5.3 on Informed Consent is problematic - because like a lot of people I don't know what this looks like in relation to people with cognitive disabilities. New legislation in Ireland, for example, has made it more difficult for my research colleagues to gain access to persons with cognitive disabilities to participate in research. Perhaps refer to some high-level considerations and avoid getting into the details. In short I think the proposed approach above is good. |
| Andrew Arch |
|
I support the single source approach that WAI has - COGA can contribute suggestions to the existing WAI docs (and EO can look for anything that meets the requirements of these docs that might be currently missing) |
| Howard Kramer |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry |
|
I am very uncomfortable with including this information in this document. If the info is to stay, it needs very strong and clear disclaimers. |
| Kevin White |
|
General ----------- The content within this section is particularly dependent on who the audience is and what their needs are. Broadly speaking there are two groups who would might be reading this content: * Readers who know little or nothing about user research * Readers who are familiar with user research If the target audience is the former then this level of basic introductory information would not sufficiently equip them to conduce any user research with people with cognitive or learning difficulties in anything like a sensitive, safe or ethical way. This is a hard group to conduct research with and I would not leave it in the hands of inexperienced researchers. Note that I appreciate that the risks vary as much as the research participants but they do not disappear. An autistic with low support needs can still experience melt downs and a poorly handled or designed research session could lead to that. If the target audience is the latter then they have no need of the introductory information and the content doesn't address their real need: understand the particulars of researching with people with cognitive or learning difficulties in terms of how to do it and what additional topics are valuable to explore. WIthout changes, I think this whole sections needs a significant caveat that user research with vulnerable adults (this would be a legal definition in the UK for many people with cognitive or learning difficulties) is not something that should be done by inexperienced or untrained researchers. The following comments are fundamentally routed in these concerns and the thought that refocusing to experienced user researchers as the key audience. 5. Title --------- There are a range of user research methodologies with different characterisitcs. For example, 1:1 vs group methods, moderated vs unmoderated. The title hints at a broad discussion but the content really only explores usability testing. This means that the title is misleading. 5.1 Usability Testing Introduction ------------------------------------------- This needs to set out what the section is going to provide in a succinct manner. This allows for a much clearer understanding of who this content is for and reinforces the need for readers to be experienced practitioners if they are going to consider working with this group of people. The introduction a lot of general statements about usability testing but misses out what the purpose of this section is. Some specific concerns: * "For example, content with fewer words and more numbers may be perfect for some users with dyslexia or autism spectrum disorder, but inaccessible for people with dyscalculia who struggle with numeric information" - this is a bit of a generality based on diagnosis that might perpetuate certain ideas about those conditions. My experience is limited but I am know plenty of people with autistic spectrum conditions who are more than comfortable with extensive written material and dyslexics who have difficulty with numbers. * "Include cognitive and learning disabilities in persona, user needs and requirements" - promoting the need and value of incuding real people over personas is important. Having this item first and without any qualification doesn't address this. 5.2 Finding People to Include ----------------------------- Recruitment of research participants is a challenge at the best of times more so for this group. I think the opening sentence is wholy misleading - this is not a relatively easy group to recruit for. User research usually relies on recruitment agencies to support recruitment and while they are often able to recruit people with dyslexia and older adults they often find it difficult with other groups mentioned. Social media is not an easy group as many of the groups are closed membership to avoid social media abuse. More, it may not be appropriate to make approaches for research into these groups. Similarly self-help groups. Support organisations can be helpful but it is important to build up a good relationship with these groups. They are rightly protective of their members and the people they provide support for and are less likely to serve up those people as research participants without knowing a lot about the researchers, their aims and their organisation. Asking within personal circles is extremely open to bias that can undermine the research. Working within an organisation and piggybacking on assistive technology support teams fails to acknowledge that supporting research recruitment is not their job or the job of disabled employees. More than that, many employees do not disclose their condition or impairment for many reasons. An experienced user researcher will be aware of many of these issues. However, if this section is retained, then the risks need to be included. 5.3 Informed Consent -------------------- This section is really problematic. Two major issues are: * Data protection legislation varies across the globe * How do you ensure that the research participant completely understands what consent means and what they are doing The UK is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation. This is based on Europe wide legislation that has been adopted by all european states. A legal requirement in this legislation is that were an organisation is gathering and using user data they have to inform the user of the legal right underwhich they are doing so and gain consent to do so. This requires particular and specific wording toincluding what the project is, who you are as an organisation, what you are going to do with the information.. This legislation also requires that the user is provided with information on how to raise a complaint if they have concerns about an abuse in their data. It also requires that the user be informed of their rights, which vary depending on the legal basis used to gather and use the data. This is not straight forward. And good research teams will have done extensive work in ensuring that their consent forms and their data protection impact assessment covers all this. Communicating all this in a way that is understandable to research participants is a challenge. Communicating it so that it is understandable to research participants with learning difficulties or cognitive impairments is a huge challenge. We have conducted extensive research and continue to do so on how to get this right and we are still learning. Experience user researchers should know all this stuff. Inexperienced user researchers won't and including a short section that barely skims the surface of this legal and ethical minefield is extremely problematic. 5.4 Usability Testing --------------------- This subsection contains some of the most vital and useful information who piece but it is a bit lost and buried. The first sentence highlights that a full guide to user research is beyond the scope of this. Going on to provide a summary hides what is really useful here though: Differences from Usability Testing with the General Population. This information is gold dust! I might suggest reframing it away from usability testing specifically as much of it is applicable to all user research methods. Also it could benefit from grouping around: planning your session (which could incorporate some heavily caveated recruitment pointers), before your session, during your session and after your session. This allows for more of a structure understanding of what considerations are important. The information could be edited a bit more to remove some of the general research advice. For example, having copies of the participation forms, explaining your method, etc. Also, there are may be other things worth considering. For example, share all research materials beforehand, tell users what they will be doing when asking what support needs they might have. THe section on what to look for when conducting usability testing is overly general. Also, the language is a bit off. In particular, 'tester' suggests that something is being 'tested', while it is easy to say that the user is not being tested, using this sort of language doesn't really help. There is an opportunity here to consider what are the real differences when working with someone with learning disability or cognitive impairment. For example, if they have a support worker how does the dynamic change, what language can help or hinder, how to explore their condition or impairment and what it means for them, how to work with groups of people. 5.5 Test Objectives ------------------- This is an entierly general section that is of no help to an experienced researcher. Also it is wholly focused on usability testing which is only one part of user research. The section also comes across as quite proscriptive - 'ask all these questions' - but what questions and observations are important depends on the research question and phase of the project. So this may be misleading. The questions seem to vere from the general into ones that are targeting specific recommendations from the broader resource. Overall this section could be broken down to key points that are worth exploring with users with learning disabilities or cognitive impairments when conducting research on user interfaces. There is also an opportunity to identify how these topics might be explored in other user research activities. |
| Estella Oncins |
|
I personally would encourage them to remove it or minimize it and develop a second document with more precise and detailed instructions. Otherwise it may cause confusion to people willing to use this resource. Detected problems: Title: Usability Testing, Focus Groups and Feedback Usability testing goes beyond research methods such as Focus Groups. In fact, other research tools such as participant observation through think-aloud protocols are more used in usability testing. Please notice that some studies even do not consider focus groups as a reseacrh method for a "usability test". (https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/focus-groups.html) 5.1. Usability Testing Introduction STATEMENT: "Usability testing is the best way to know if your content and functionality works for real people with cognitive and learning disabilities." According to Usability Gov <https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/usability-testing.html#:~:text=Usability%20testing%20refers%20to%20evaluating,watch%2C%20listen%20and%20takes%20notes.> "Usability testing refers to evaluating a product or service by testing it with representative users. Typically, during a test, participants will try to complete typical tasks while observers watch, listen and takes notes. The goal is to identify any usability problems, collect qualitative and quantitative data and determine the participant's satisfaction with the product." OBSERVATION: Not clear what is meant with "your content and functionality". Other wording such as "using user needs" or "automated testing" may lead to confusion. 5.2. Finding People to Include In "usability testing" terminology it is "user recruitment" or "user sampling" SORRY but I do not agree with the statement: "Finding people to include in usability testing who have different learning and cognitive disabilities can be relatively easy." According to ethical procedures in the US, UK and/or EU people with cognitive disabilities belong to vulnerable groups and their rights have to be safeguard. In the EU each country has additional legislation in this regard. Ethical procedures go beyond "informed consent". In section 5.4.1 you refer to Smart4MD and Easy Reading H2020 projects. Both had to submit a section 5 on ethical procedures that go beyond consent form specially if vulnerable people are involved in research. See deliverable on ethics from the project Easy Reading https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/780529/results <https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/780529/results> "Ethical regulations. All countries have different regulations regarding ethical practice in research. The codexes and practices may also vary depending on the nature of research. Each country within Easy Reading is obliged to abide by any institutional, professional, and legal requirements in their country regarding ethical approval." 5.4. Usability Testing It is beyond the scope of this document to provide a guide to usability testing and user-research, however, there are useful resources available on ourdeveloper resource page <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Developer_resources>. *As a short overview, usability could be measured based on efficacy, efficiency and satisfaction.* SORRY but the provided usability definition is based on ISO and is inclomplete. ISO 9241-11 (2018)//defines “usability”//as “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” ISO has several standards about how to measure usability. 5.5. Test objectives You can test the objectives of the design guide. If they are successful, that section can be considered completed! SORRY but the text: "Here are some suggestions of what to look for when conducting usability testing with people with learning and cognitive disabilities:" some of them are legal obligations. I would really encourage not to include this section or integrated with section 4 which focus on design. As the main problem for a usability testing is to properly design the testing session. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I support including this type and level of information in the Content Usable document, even though it goes against EOWG's previous decisions, because of the rationale in the comments below. |
|
| I would be OK including this information in the Content Usable document only if it includes a clear disclaimer. | |
| I would be OK including this information in the Content Usable document only with the [!!] edits below. | |
| Neutral. |
|
| I do not support including this type and level of information in the Content Usable document, based on EOWG's previous comments &/or additional comments below. |
|
| I have significant concerns with the information as is. Before it is published, the issues need broader consideration and the guidance vetted with experts and practitioners. |
|
6. COGA Usability Testing - Edits?
Section in Content Usable: Usability Testing, Focus Groups and Feedback (5.1-5.4.1)
If this section stays, what input do you have for potential changes for the initial publication?
What input do you have for later versions?
(remember to indicate each comment with [!!] or [med] or [low])
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Laura Keen | [!!]I agree with: EOWG suggests that COGA editors could add 1-3 sentences in the "Content Usable" doc to highlight issues related to users with cognitive disabilities and point to: Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility, an established, vetted W3C WAI EOWG Resource Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility, an established, vetted W3C WAI EOWG Resource maybe WAI EOWG Resource Planning and Managing Web Accessibility, an established, vetted W3C WAI EOWG Resource [additionally] well vetted resources from https://www.easyreading.eu/downloas/ |
| Jennifer Chadwick | [med] All of this information is excellent, clear and helpful. However, for scanability and better intake of varying topics, it might be good to further break up the content into subsections by putting a heading ahead of the paragraphs for the following (editorial suggestions): Considerations for Automated Testing ("Automated testing for accessibility focuses on more technical areas of accessibility..."), Approaching Design and Content ("Sometimes designs and content are usable for some people but not if they have cognitive or learning impairments...."). |
| Jason McKee | |
| Kris Anne Kinney | Too many changes - it's just too much. Too much information, I found it overwhelming. And I don't even think the placement of it in the TR makes sense. we talk about usability testing before we talk about the users? |
| Vicki Menezes Miller | |
| Dónal Rice | |
| Andrew Arch | no concrete suggestions right now |
| Howard Kramer | |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | @@ |
| Kevin White | |
| Estella Oncins | [!!] Cross reference to existing EOWG documents [med] The usability testing section does not provide any reference to relevant bibliography in the usability testing field. It might be better to have a separate document for usability testing. |
7. EOWG Usability Testing / Involving Users Resources
What might we want to add to or edit to better cover cognitive issues in following EOWG Resources:
- Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility
- Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility
- Planning and Managing Web Accessibility
- other?
What changes might we want to make now, and what might we want to queue up for working on with COGA TF when they are available?
Best if you add a new GitHub issue for Involve Users All or new GitHub issue for Involve Users in Evaluation or Planning & Managing, then put the link to that issue in this survey. Though, comments below are OK.
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Laura Keen | |
| Jennifer Chadwick | No changes and agree these should be included as cross reference points. |
| Jason McKee | |
| Kris Anne Kinney | Ran out of time to thoroughly think about this - but I think we should reevaluate these resources from the cognitive perspective to avoid the push back from the COGA folks to use our resources. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller | |
| Dónal Rice | |
| Andrew Arch | Some of the material from '5.2 Finding People to Include' and '5.3 informed consent' could be useful in either/both of the 'Involving users' docs (or as part of a new doc that supports both of our existing ones) |
| Howard Kramer | |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | Consider adding some COGA-related info, e.g.: * Diff: https://github.com/w3c/wai-InvolveUsersAll/pull/12/files * preview (links under Working with Users): https://deploy-preview-12--wai-involveusersall.netlify.app/planning/involving-users/#with |
| Kevin White | |
| Estella Oncins | For now add cross reference to existing EOWG materials. |
More details on responses
- Laura Keen: last responded on 4, January 2021 at 18:44 (UTC)
- Jennifer Chadwick: last responded on 7, January 2021 at 22:53 (UTC)
- Jason McKee: last responded on 8, January 2021 at 12:45 (UTC)
- Kris Anne Kinney: last responded on 8, January 2021 at 19:35 (UTC)
- Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 10, January 2021 at 20:38 (UTC)
- Dónal Rice: last responded on 12, January 2021 at 11:06 (UTC)
- Andrew Arch: last responded on 12, January 2021 at 22:00 (UTC)
- Howard Kramer: last responded on 15, January 2021 at 04:34 (UTC)
- Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 15, January 2021 at 13:20 (UTC)
- Kevin White: last responded on 18, January 2021 at 09:29 (UTC)
- Estella Oncins: last responded on 19, January 2021 at 05:14 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Eric Velleman
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Sylvie Duchateau
- Kazuhito Kidachi
- Sharron Rush
- Jedi Lin
- David Sloan
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Reinaldo Ferraz
- Bill Kasdorf
- Cristina Mussinelli
- Kevin White
- Kevin Rydberg
- Adina Halter
- Denis Boudreau
- Sarah Pulis
- Bill Tyler
- Gregorio Pellegrino
- Ruoxi Ran
- Sean Kelly
- Muhammad Saleem
- Sarah Lewthwaite
- Daniel Montalvo
- Mark Palmer
- Jade Matos Carew
- Sonsoles López Pernas
- Greta Krafsig
- Jayne Schurick
- Billie Johnston
- Michele Williams
- Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
- Brian Elton
- Julianna Rowsell
- Tabitha Mahoney
- Fred Edora
- Rabab Gomaa
- Marcelo Paiva
- Eloisa Guerrero
- Leonard Beasley
- Frankie Wolf
- Supriya Makude
- Aleksandar Cindrikj
- Angela Young
Send an email to all the non-responders.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project