w3c logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG 2 September 2005 Minutes




Harvey Bingham, Helle Bjarno, Judy Brewer, Alan Chuter, Shawn Henry, Tanguy Lohéac, William Loughborough, Barry McMullin, Doyle Saylor, Henk Snetselaar, Jack Welsh
Emma Jane Hogbin, Liam McGee, Sailesh Panchang, Pasquale Popolizio, Justin Thorp
Judy Brewer
Alan Chuter (first hour and cleanup), Barry McMullin (second hour)

Outreach Updates

WD: Have started course on Web architecture. Have started students off designing page with no visual styling, to add it later.

Evaluating Web Accessibility with users

JB: Is early concept draft. To investigate how it addresses needs.

JB: [goes over points in agenda]

SH: [summarises document]

SH: Is not a detailed document.

WL: Are 'users' only people with disabilities?

SH: Roberto says in message that it shouldn't be restrictive.

DS: Wonder how many people are familiar with term users.

DS: Would prefer different term. Too ambiguous.

SH: Could be just people with disabilities. 'Users' may be jargon, but target audience use it.

WL: Can we define 'users' at top of document?

WL: Users doing tests will spread the word beyond specialist groups. Audience could include users doing tests. Also tool designers.

SH: This may interest users, but the rest of the evaluation suite would not.

WL: Important to get these ideas to a wider audience, including beginners.

JB: We did the requirements document last month.

WL: Users doing tests can become emissaries, spreading the [accessibility] message.

JB: Good idea but should go in a different document.

WL: Don't agree. This process is central to group's goals.

JB: Can't do everything in each document. Could point to a document somewhere else.

WL: OK to point to another document.

SH: Reserve editor's discretion.

JB: editor try adding in a point roughly along these lines: involvement of users in eval is a good first step towards establishing ongoing constructive feedback cycle

JB: Can reopen requirements if people really want to but prefer not to.

WD: Looks like a more general document on UCD, rather than one for accessibility.

JB: A clearer focus on accessibility in introduction

HS: document says usability testing not a requirement for WCAG compliance; differentiates them.

HS: so should focus on access or user?

HS: In introduction, need to talk about relationship between access and user testing.

WL: Clarity is confounded by title (usability testing v. accessibility evalaution)

SH: I mean very informally involving users, not rigourous testing.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-eval-ut.html

HS: Expect clearer distinction between accessibility evaluation and user testing.

JB: Not attempting to tell people how to do usability testing. Document mentions that site must be moderately accessible before trying to test it with users.

WL: Should do preparatory work first.

HS: Need mini-business case up front? reactions?

HS: Need both "when" and "why" explained in intro.

BM: issue is complementing expert evaluation with user testing - form of cross-checking/validation.

SH: Bigger context is not enough attention to even generic usability evaluation; but this issue is *even* more important for PWD.

JB: Contextualise doc with respect to expert accessibility evaluation *and* generic usability testing; and do it concisely!

WD: Consider swopping sections: user involvment, types of user involvement...

HB: agree

Correct: swap user aspect and types of involvement...

HB: Include refs to specific user assistive tech such as braille reading...

JB: Maybe give examples to ensure adequate coverage of disability groups (otherwise may have multiple subjects with same profile?).

SH: Need examples to show potential interaction or conflict between different disability groups?

JB: Danger of feeding myth that accessibility is logically impossible?
... Maybe provide a summary list of assistive tech?

SH: Point at "How PWD use the Web"...

JB: What (else) is missing from doc?
... Maybe not clear enough about what to do within a user test with PWD?
... What to ask the users to do?

WD: This is missing, but might be better in separate, dedicated doc?

JB: Title of this doc implies it should be here?

<shawn> BM: ...there's nothing special from other usability testing...

BMcM: This answer is generic: ask then to do the standard tasks that the site permits?

JB: But some of the audience with need advice or elaboration on that?

<shawn> ??: reference other resources

SH: Agrees with Judy and Barry (!): How to do this concisely? Requirements say "introduce", not be comprehensive. Must say *something*...
... write up a little more but then explicitly say that traditional usability techniques are applicable, with some mods, and then point at further resources.

JB: under "types of user involvement" add some brief but concrete examples.

HB: Nice to have examples, but danger of being read as one example covers all?

JB: Not in requirements doc, but what about question of "how do I find appropriate test subjects"? There are useful cautions in current doc, but not positive suggestions; such as "contact local disability organisations".

HS: If there was significant take up of this idea, there would not be enough PWD's to go around...

WD: Issue of remuneration? JB: WOuld be good to at least say it is an issue, and there and many different approaches. Standard usability stuff, but maybe our audience doesn't know. SH: So cover by linking to another existing doc.

<Harvey> HB: Concern for compensating participants.

SH: Lots of related issues - too many to deal with?

JB: So can expand "outline structure", name a wider range of issues, but not elaborate, but refer outward to them.

WD: Naming issues and linking to them is good strategy to get people to consider them.

JB: What might we cut out?

HS: Refer to "essential components of web accessibility" doc, and cut out any duplication here.

<shawn> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.php)

JB: Not sure that that generic doc addresses the needs of user testing precisely enough; particularly the point of distinguishing contributions from different components within a test context.
... There is some history of mis-attribution of problems to wrong components.

SH: Understands and will incorporate; all agree to editor discretion.

JB: Anything else we can cut?

(Going, going, Gone...)

JB: Comments on overall structure/flow?

JR: Interplay with title and overall distinction between generic usability and accessibility testing...


<Harvey> in Understanding, there you distinguish bewtween usability &amp; accessibility issues;

JB: "user aspects" -> "who to involve"?

SH: Return to discussion of overall title?

JB: Comments on current title?

HB: Got key ideas - "users" + "accessibility"?

WD: Qualification: which should be first?

HS: Before call, wondered about using "usability" in title; but now, in view of discussion, happy with current title.

<shawn> Pasquale: About title, suggestions: "Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users' Help", "Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users' Assistance", "Evaluating Web Accessibility with Users' Support". I tried to translate title into Italian and it seems more comprehensible with "help", "assistance" or "support".

HB: No strong opinion.

Tanguy: Add "with ... users' help/feedback/participation"?

<Harvey> Users Can Help Evaluate Web Accessibility

SH: Similar suggestion from Pasquale

JB: "User involvement in evaluating web accessibility"?

WL: "Involving users in web accessibility evaluation"?

SH: Not sure if will be easily understandable for our target audience (who don't already "get it")?

JW: This title moves (helpfully?) toward less formal evaluation - if that is what we want?
... Balance is difficult

WL: Actual text already explicitly indicates informality.

WD: Supports title also: if developers are given direction to involve "users", this title will match.

JB: We'll be back to this!

SH: Probably come back to this doc, with new draft, on Sep 16th.

JB: Wrapping up; thanks to all, next meeting on Friday next, 9th September. Encourage all to read docs and comment in advance when possible!

<shawn> Scribe: Alan & Barry

<shawn> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JulSep/0119.html & http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JulSep/0118.html

Summary of Action Items