[Accessibility-testing] 2018 goals review

deborah.kaplan at suberic.net deborah.kaplan at suberic.net
Tue Feb 6 12:38:53 EST 2018

I think this is exactly right.

1. Nonexhaustive list of adaptive techs (including keyboard use, browser magnification, and other native adaptive ways of using computers).

2. List of play platforms which are used, maintained, and have a reasonable chance of getting updated.

I also am very much in favor of either developing or finding a minimal game that has all the features we are worried about. From talking to Jason, I understand that the classic test game is old-school IF, and wouldn't give us the ability to test images or that kind of screen-changing interaction I kept describing to Jason as "you know, all that AJAXy stuff."

I am in favor of finding some way to compensate testers, if possible. I have become a stronger and stronger advocate of the idea that we should pay people for their work, especially people from communities underrepresented in the industry.  When  disabled users do accessibility testing for commercial sites, there's usually an Amazon gift card or PayPal honorarium. For the for-profit sites, that honorarium usually ranges between $50-$150; maybe something less than that would be possible?


On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, Jason McIntosh wrote:
> The test-coverage matrix will be akin to a two-dimensional grid whose Y-axis is specific assistive techs: Magnifiers, screen readers, dictation software, and so on — not at all an exhaustive list of every make and model, but a representative sample. This can also have “not-techs” relevant to a11y testing, e.g. play without the use of a mouse.
> The X-axis is IF play platforms: Quixe, Parchment, Gargoyle, Lectrote, Sugarcube, Harlowe, ChoiceScript, et cetera, noting the versions of all software involved.
> Having established this matrix, we the IFTF accessibility testing team would then prepare an original work of IF that would exercise the accessibility features of its platform. This, admittedly, is me rolling in a new idea, but I humbly report it’s based on y’all’s conversation so far. I envision this game as similar to “Cloak of Darkness” (http://www.firthworks.com/roger/cloak/), except tuned for accessibility: to get to the end of the (very short!) game, the player must interact with the game in a variety of ways, including ways that might present an unintended challenge to players with disabilities.
> For example, one “puzzle” might involve opening a lock by looking at an image of a note and typing in a code found in that image. The game will include “alt text” for that image, and it’s up to the play platform to display it correctly, and under the correct conditions. Similarly, there may be a puzzle that involves ASCII artwork, or listening to an audio clip, and so on.
> We will adapt this game for as many IF systems as needed (Inform, Twine, ChoiceScript…) in order to cover all the play-platforms we wish to cover. This adaptation will involve making platform-appropriate changes, such as adding a challenge based on "cycle-links” in a Twine game. Furthermore, if a certain platform cannot accommodate a certain disability at all — for example, it allows an image to be displayed, but not with alt-text — then we mark this down in the appropriate spots of the matrix as a systemic failure.
> Having established all this, we invite the testers to play! We coordinate with testers to get as much coverage of the matrix as possible, and the IFTF team can itself fill in gaps where needed. On completing the game, testers fill in a survey detailing which technologies they used to play, and allowing the, to make additional notes and comments. We plug their results and notes into the matrix as appropriate.
> Does all the above sound on-point so far?

More information about the Accessibility-testing mailing list