I told you that accessibility-in-use would start to become more accepted. Apparently the W4A Reviewers – a notoriously tough bunch – seem to agree as they’ve accepted our paper ‘Evaluating Accessibility-in-Use’ to the W4A 2013 Conference in Rio!
Well we undertook a study of validity and reliability of WCAG 2.0 and found that an 80% target for agreement is not attainable, when audits are conducted without communication between evaluators. Even with experienced evaluators the error rate is relatively high; and further, untrained accessibility auditors -be they developers or quality testers from other domains- do much worse than this. Read the full published text via ACM Author-izer Open Access on the publications page.
We believe that high-complexity interaction, defined by choice and flexibility, is the key problem. Choice and flexibility are normally seen as positive in that, from a technology perspective, ‘more’ adds-value; however we disagree and propose a counter intuitive investigation of the benefits of the opposing principles centred around inflexibility and constraint. The object of this PhD project is to empirically test this belief.
We believe that a combinatorial approach to evaluation may be more effective than those applied by individual tools and engines. The object of this PhD project is to empirically test this belief.