colin.clark at utoronto.ca
Tue May 15 03:02:52 UTC 2007
Thanks for posting these links. I've included a few thoughts below.
> I think the idea of combining accessibility and heuristic reviews is a
> good one. It occurred to me that one of the templates we use for Sakai
> may be useful, in that it takes a non-technical look at web page
> accessibility, and could be combined fairly easily with a heuristic
> review. It includes a line for the results of a WAVE review, which in my
> mind is the first step, highlighting potential problems, but as far as
> accessibility reviewers WAVE 3.5 is pretty user-friendly.
I agree that your Sakai templates are a good starting point for the
accessibility side of FLUID's heuristic protocol. I've done a couple of
accessibility QA tests using your Sakai protocol and found it very
focussed and helpful.
As we start to flesh out a heuristic protocol I hope it will be directly
beneficial to the Sakai accessibility QA protocol, too.
> That said, there will still (to my mind) be a need for a JAWS review,
> which, low and behold, we also have a template for.
> Here is the link: http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/confluence/x/8ow
I agree. It is hard for most people to get access to expensive assistive
technologies, so hopefully those of us who do can help carry the testing
weight. Even better is having access to users who are experienced with
JAWS or Window-Eyes; they often use their screen readers in ways that
casual users might not expect.
On the other hand, I hope that the accessibility heuristics will be
sufficient to catch many user experience issues without the need to test
directly with screen readers.
In his document on the wiki, Clayton makes a good point about the need
to test the UI at a more granular level, looking at individual widgets.
This is also an area where screen reader testing makes a lot of sense.
> It would be great if you could take a look and we could discuss their
> usefullness via email prior to the next Breeze meeting. Colin and
> Richard, I'm particularly looking forward to your thoughts because of
> your expertise. The protocol employs the Firefox accessibility checker
> and WAVE 3.5, but perhaps there is something that covers 2.0 from U
> Toronto that would be preferable...
Our AChecker accessibility checking tool does indeed support WCAG 2.0:
I'm biased, but I use AChecker for all my accessibility reviews.
> Any and all suggestions for streamlining this or simplifying for persons
> not familiar with accessibility testing (should you think necessary)
> will be greatly appreciated, of course!
This is a really good question. It's always a challenge to communicate
all the background information that comes with accessibility testing
experience. One area where I think we can improve is to provide more
background about what to look for in each of the areas you identify in
your protocols. Also, realistic example reports--which I noticed you
provide along with the Sakai protocols--can be very helpful in conveying
what kinds of information should be included within each column.
Daphne included a link on the wiki to a heuristic evaluation template
that she has used in the past. I'm curious to hear your thoughts about
how this could work along with your own templates, Mike.
Technical Lead, FLUID Project
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
More information about the fluid-work