, sample test plans and forms from The Handbook of Usability Testing , and Rocket Surgery Made Easy: The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Finding
and Fixing Usability Problems with a sample usability test, scripts, and forms online.<yeliz> fine by me
Shawn: Re-org of agenda. new topic is second first
Shawn: The summary issue with
this: Our target audience for this doc would find this book
extremely helpful. it would likely encourage them to do more evaluation
with people with disabilities. it would give the information and
confidence to do that. Shadi & I discussed the parameters
of what to list here. we'll consider to list other resources. don't know any other resource in this category - well under 100
pages and written for the non specialized on usability testing. We thought this good to point to this resource to encourage
people to include users in eval.
... in the agenda is proposed text with the link
... ok to add this? another other candidates for listing in this category? any concerns?
<yeliz> I am OK to add this
Andrew: I think the more we can help people the better.
<yeliz> I agree with Andrew
<sylvie> ok
Doyle: sounds good.
Andrew: I think this is good to recommend and they can use the resouces from the linked page.
<shawn> ACTION: EOWG participants not on this call: please comment if any questions or concerns or ideas on adding this resource or if there are others in the category. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/23-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<yeliz> I won't be able to attend
Shawn: Important notes, currently EO is scheduled to meet Thursday and Friday of that week, and we may need to Monday and Tuesday that week because of a meeting scheduled that week. Has anybody made travel plans for TPAC.
Yeliz: I won't be able to attend. I'm pregnant :-)
<sinarmaya> I'm thinking about ;-)
Sylvie: I have no plans now. Monday 1-Nov is not working day in France, but I arrange that .
Shawn: we will try to keep it at Thursday and Friday, Thanks Sylvie for the flexibility. Emmanuelle?
<sinarmaya> I need think about more.. sorry
<shawn> ACTION: EOWG participants not on call: let Shawn know right away if Mon & Tue day for EOWG f2f at TPAC is a problems [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/23-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<yeliz> :)
<shawn> www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/#Accommodation
Shawn: For the meetings in
France, we have not reserved a hotel block. The hotels might
fill up we strongly advise you to reserve hotel. Sometimes you
can reserve with no money down. Change dates with no penalty.
To go ahead and reserve for a whole week then change later if
you can get one that is changeable. There is info in the agenda
about the hotel. Any other questions about the face to
face?
... The next topic is UAAG guidelines
Shawn: There is a call for review
a little while ago on this. Believe they are close to a last
call. Hope to get a good look at it. The EOWG tends to review
the technical specifications from an understandability and
usability perspective. Please submit your comments please put
into the usual channels. If you have comments about
understandability we can talk about that as a group.
... I guess we have three things for review in the next month
essentially, UAG, WAI ARIA documents soon, if we have comments
right away they might be implemented before the next
publication, and then ATAG is up for a review now. With a
September deadline. Any thoughts on a review approach? For
example for each person on the call. Focus on one of the three,
or one, all three at a high level.
<yeliz> me too, prefer to focus on one
Doyle: focus on one myself. I would choose UAAG
<yeliz> I can focus on WAI-ARIA
Sylvie: I think I can focus on ATAG. Could you recall the deadlines for the three?
Shawn: UAAG wants comments by next week. Our comments could be a little late and that would be ok. ATAG is nine September.
Sylvie: I couldn't read the ATAG deadline in the call for review email.
Shawn: to September. ARIA has not got out yet. If we found some easy fixes before it goes out, at least we can plan now to do a good review when they do come out. Ok I will contact each of you. Plan some time.
andrew: do we want to look at understanding as well?
Shawn: Techniques and
understanding as well. Yes.
... I don't know if we should focus on the changes or what?
<yeliz> If UAAG and ATAG are priority because of the deadline
<yeliz> I can try to look at one of them first?
<sylvie> For Understanding and WCAG techniques deadline is August 9
<shawn> ACTION: EOWG participants not on call: please let Shawn know which documents you can focus on for review over the next 4 weeks: WCAG Techniques & Understanding, UAAG, ATAG, &/or WAI-ARIA [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/23-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<sinarmaya> I will look ARIA :-)
Shawn: Again for that I will check in with folks when they have comments, we expect to have a full agenda next week and the following then in August we will ask for draft comments for discussion. And someone to write that up would be good. That is the next three agenda items. Other comments or questions? Plan time to review over the next three weeks. I don't know if we will have time in the next week to talk about. Especially with UAAG feel free to
<shawn> Availability for teleconferences: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/availability/
Shawn: good to do on the list,
and because of full agenda to comment in email list.
... your availability will help us plan for discussions.
Doyle topics just covered.
Shawn: lets go ahead and keep going
Shawn: a recent email part of your participation to reply to emails sent to the list. Please respond to that email. And any other emails. That is requirement of participation. To respond to those. Any other comments on that. I think there has been some good discussion in the thread. This document is an early draft at this point. We will examine a later draft.
Doyle: this has been discussed
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-sites-older-users.html
Shawn: First thing to do with
this. Remind ourselves what we want to do with this. Look at
the scenarios and goals, and the analysis on that. The second
in the agenda.
... Particularly if you will look at the scenarios and
audience. See if you have any questions or comments on that.
This is an internal document, to give us an idea. Not details
on the word. But does this still make sense for those we want
to target this for. Primary and secondary audience do we still
agree with that.
... anyone about really important perspective or thought?
Andrew: to highlight we said the primary audience are web developers not accessibility aware, but also people who know about accessibility but who are looking for older people guidance.
Shawn: any other questions or
comments on that?
... Then the next point is to look at the updated on the first
three sections. High level or word smithing level. On the first
three sections.
Shadi: The first sentence actually explains how WCAG increases usability. Is that all we are trying to do with this document?
Ian: increase access and usability? People don't understand the connection between usability and accessibility.
<shawn> ... makes websites and web applications work better for older people.
Shadi: improve accessibility increases usability.
<sylvie> also meet the needs of older people
Shawn: or avoiding jargon, make web sites more usable for older people.
Ian: it shows you how to follow
WCAG guidelines to hopefully make more accessible.
... so you were saying this insures that pages are accessible,
but this is not quite what that is, it says how to follow WCAG
guidelines to make accessible which is slightly different.
Shawn: shows you how to use WCAG works, or how WCAG helps older people.
<shawn> -- older peoples needs can be met by following WCAG -- how you can use WCAG to meet the needs of older users
Ian: I would hope the first possibility. Which should apply to which audience but they should be happy with that.
Shawn: Most of the rest of what we have in the next few sections or sentence is not dependent. Can be at the word smithing level.
Shadi: Under the section understanding accessibility for older people. I suggest removing the part that work for people with disabilities, and replace might work with some older users.
Shawn: why?
Shadi: because it reinforces the myth that all PWD are experts with computers.
IAN: that works for us because we have an understanding, but if not you wouldn't have an understanding.
Shawn: my concern as well, why are you doing advanced solutions when they don't work for anybody?
<yeliz> I think it's better if that stays in
Shadi: point taken. Maybe the editor have a brief look at that.
Shawn: yes
Andrew: yes.
Shadi: also Yeliz thinks we leave in.
<yeliz> I also wonder if this sentence "One difference is that older people are less likely to use assistive technologies and adaptive strategies." make a strong assumption?
Andrew: we might need a different qualifier.
<shawn> Thus more advanced accessibility solutions that work for experienced users might not work well for some older people.
Shadi: work for experienced users?
Shawn: cover both concerns?
Shadi: covers mine.
<IanPouncey> works
<yeliz> fine by me
<yeliz> +1
Shawn: others who wanted to qualify. Any objections to changing the sentence?
<shawn> ACTION: andrew: edit sentence to: Thus more advanced accessibility solutions that work for experienced users might not work well for some older people. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/23-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Shawn: next point in one of the first three sections?
<yeliz> I also wonder if this sentence "One difference is that older people are less likely to use assistive technologies and adaptive strategies." make a strong assumption?
Shawn: yes... especially with adaptive strategies.
<yeliz> older people are more educated about Web now
Andrew: yes if drop assistive strategies on that.
Shawn: I think we should drop that.
Shadi: I think the qualifier is just fine. Using larger fonts some people learns. The more advanced like using browsers that all would be a moving target where do we draw a line here?
<yeliz> :)
<yeliz> I am OK to leave it in
Shawn: where we use less likely
work for that? Sufficient of one type of research to justify
that.
... What else?
... In any of the first three sections?
... Ready to move on?
<IanPouncey> ready
<yeliz> Ready to move on
<sinarmaya> me too
Shawn: Next. Thank you. Now we get to a bigger picture issue. The rest of the document is currently organized content by WCAG by points. We also talked about the editors reorganizing this by user needs. We got feedback from the WCAG working group.
Andrew: yes
Shawn: we thought about that the pros and cons and sketched out and saw how that works. See the rough notes in the agenda by user needs.
Sylvie: I have a question about where rough notes end. The same as the other, how is it structured?
Shawn: looking at that H2?
Sylvie: I read this new proposal and know which is the rough notes?
Shawn: it ends at the next H2. Where it ends.
Sylvie: the H3 about the declining eyesights is still included?
Andrew: yes
<yeliz> Thinking about the audience I feel like the Option1: by WCAG (as is current draft) is better
Shawn: yes after that is how we might reorganize it.
Sylvie: i do not understand about the editors with the linked notes.
<yeliz> But again may be I am looking at it from an engineer perspective
Andrew: yes the link deeply into the literature but will be removed when we publish this. It was a couple of weeks to not have in the document, but we thought it might help some of the reviewers to look at the notes we came from. They will be removed before publication.
Shawn: make sense?
Sylvie: yes.
Shawn: hard to tell where things start and stop here. Basically what we have now. If you follow the agenda link. You get to an H2 in the changelog, reads, and a sentence about what this is, then advantages in the approach. Andrew will read.
Andrew: might meet the requirments for people not familiar with WCAG, older people, for people developing than the more abstract and more educational, the disadvantages is it not structured like WCAG, we might want WCAG success criteria with different frameworks, like presenting WCAG differently for different audiences.
Shawn: then how they should be addressed. Then how older users might look if it was reorganized. We thought it still good to list each guideline, but only list what is particularly useful for older users.
Andrew: We thought this would meet this particular requirement.
Shawn: other thoughts of the advantages or disadvantages?
<sinarmaya> Could not we have a dynamic document that presents the information in one form or another at the request of the user?
Sylvie: the way you write now,
you have only the example of declining eyesight. Do the same
for the others, the success criteria, register with other
people with eyesight decline, and hearing decline, the document
would be very long, if you repeat for success criteria two.
When you look 1.2 with reference to people with hearing
decline. Written hearing decline when you talk about hearing
decline you quote the same guidelines, and rewrite again.
... I am afraid the document would be too long then.
Shawn: a very good point Sylvie. Andrew how much would be an issue in editing, or how much related to a quick cut and paste. If you reorgainized the whole document, and this under the vision, then have different text in the auditory.
Andrew: yes that is why I put hearing in brackets. Yes there would be a bit of repetition but only the guidelines from impairment grouping, to impairment, but not all not repeated, and some over lap but not much.
Shawn: because you haven't edited?
Andrew: yes
Sylvie: maybe interesting to say at each guideline how much meets this particular group. Five of nine SC meet the needs of people with visual decline?
Shawn: what would be the benefits. Saying five out of nine?
Sylvie: I don't know.
Shawn: what about having dynamic to choose either? I think what we would say, We don't have the resources to do both at this point, if we went to this other organization we would keep an option to look at the quick reference and be available by checkpoint that way. To meet dynamic and offereing both options here.
Ian: I don't particularly like this format. I would not like to see developers fix for blind people or deaf people and I prefer the grouping as a good approach to these criteria.
Shawn: thank you.
Andrew: I had the same reaction.
Shawn: we have done this with how people with disabilities with some document but that it needed that. But we don't want to do that if we can avoid that.
Doyle: I strongly agree with Ian.
<sinarmaya> I was referring to group according to WCAG 2.0 and grouped by user needs. Not grouped by type of disability ;-)
Ian: what is useful, a key path. From each criteria, to incorporate here.
<yeliz> I also definitely prefer option 1
<yeliz> I think option 2 adds complexity to the document
Shawn: we did that with the early draft of making your presentations available to all. There was negative reaction to that as well.
Andrew: the current draft itself does that, take each of the success criteria for older people, it says who is benefited. In text you have to read.
Shawn: can you say or read put a link to the WCAG comments that prompted this consideration.
Andrew: I can read them.
Shawn: reply to Michael to send to EO editors.
Andrew: yes.
... they commented on the title then currently organized by
WCAG success criteria but have suggested organising by older
people to use the impairment approach.
Shawn: I think they would feel if we said we tried it and it didn't work. Anyone want to present the case for the reorg. With the current organization to get advantages of the draft reorg. Anyone to present the case for the reorg?
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to acknowledge other needs besides accessibility (security, privacy, and usability)
Shawn: lets look at the current organization. To see if we can do with the current organizations to improve this. (Reads) making more approachable?
Ian: to separate design from development. Definitely one is more important at a design stage.
Shawn: good point, maybe scope creep for this document, but maybe for another presentation at some point.
Ian: yes perhaps I would work on
that at some point.
... you don't want to see me design it thought.
Shadi: there is more than design and development. More ways to think of. Back end front end.
Ian: yes.
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn & Ian -- think about which aspects of WCAG apply at design phase & development phase -- and other ways to filter it -- and how to present that info -- maybe Quick Ref toggle [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/23-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: Looking at the current we
got an out of scope on this but we recorded as a good idea to
look at elsewhere. Anything to make more approachable as ideas?
Too scared off by the WCAG numberings sort of changes? Nice to
do some informal usability testing. Know anybody. For fifteen
minutes of their time. Anyone.
... anything else on the reorganizing? Stay with the current
organization and not reorganization.
Shadi: the more I look at it the
more I feel it is out scope. If you are not familiar with WCAG
you want to do that elsewhere. We want to help developers to
integrate that into their work flow. How much this helps. The
point I want to make is the section title how to help older people, for
someone who wants to learn how this works for older people. This is
more about how to develop for older people. More developer
oriented. From WCAG not to focus too much on tech
... we want to try to do for developers consider these
techniques you will make your site more accessible and it
works for older people as well. That will come really useful
for them. I suggest going more in the other direction. Instead
of breaking up the techniques but to look at the wording of
each to bring out how to implement better. This talks too much
to researchers. Too educational. A lot talk about how it could
be education. Rather than
Andrew: To summarize, at one point we had a lot more techniques but we took some out because they applied to not just older people but a wide range of people, and Shadi is suggesting to put a list of what to do because it applies to not just older people, it would be more useful to developers.
Shadi: some of the comments are more justifying. Rather than how to apply properly.
Shawn: example?
Shadi: under guideline one point one. It starts to explain the guidelines. What is in there for a developer. We are trying to create an introductory resource for people and that is out of scope. Next one is 1.1.1 we don't have to add the techniques to the document but point to them. We want to explain how this works for a user group.
Andrew: I'm not sure how to do that.
Shadi: On the first point, are there techniques that relate to that? Using technique blah blah blah. Using the numbers is added back in.
Andrew: the wording has been abstracted from a specific technique.
Shadi: read between this justifies but doesn't go the extra step.
Andrew: don't go to high a level and come down a bit.
Shadi: related to the first comment about what this document is trying to do.
Shawn: what more feedback now? Versus taking off line?
Andrew: yes
Shadi: yes.
Shawn: I will hand over you want EO to consider now? Or do offline?
Shadi: I want to check with Andrew off line then bring back to EO.
Andrew: the title should reflect what is in the document not the other way around.
Shadi: one thing I want to look at the title and then explains at some point that older people experience accessibility requirements but what other needs of older people you need to do. If you use WCAG that is entirely the case. But that is not exactly the case.
Andrew: yes good point.
<Andrew> ACTION: Developing - consider adding mention of 'privacy, security, usability' etc as additional issues concerning older people, but just accessibility addressed here [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/23-eo-minutes.html#action06]
<sinarmaya> I think the document should not be a repetition of the points of WCAG 2.0 with an explanation of how they benefit the elderly. I think it should be a list of user needs to point to the techniques listed in WCAG to remedy. For example: The need for a user is: get help to remember the meaning of an acronym. This need is due to cognitive loss. And this need is covered by the #. #
Shawn: since we looked over the
first three sections. Bit edited flag those so we don't have to
look at again. If we reorg we would have to look at again. Any
other comments for the editors at the next pass at this? We
will discuss the title ideas after they work on it. Feel free
to share title ideas send to the list, so we don't lose. Any
title ideas?
... Anything else on developing web sites for older people. We
have a few minutes to mention we would like to keep learning
how people use our documents if you get any feedback on that.
Keep an eye if you see a presentation that links to us. To help
us improve our work and what we do with that. Also wanted to
open, anything someone wants to share with EO. Now is the
time.
Shawn: thanks for your time we will consolidate the time for the next face to face. Please make time for review in the next few weeks. Be using your four hours per week for the next two months.
Shawn: Have a great weekend. Thanks all.