[Accessibility-testing] Fwd: Player Panel proposal document

[Zachary Kline]

Hey Jason et al,

Please find my takes on these questions below.

1. Yeah, we definitely want low-vision and motor disabilities as well as blind. If we could find some cognitively-disabled testers that would be ideal too, but might be harder to evaluate and deal with.
2. I’m in favor of 50-ish here, it seems a decent sample size for the audience.
3. Fluency in English is about all I can think of here :)

Best,
Zack.
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 11:10 AM, Jason McIntosh <jmac at jmac.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Here are some requests for clarification from Dr. Chris Power @ AbleGamers, who leads the Player Panel program there. (And thank you again for setting up that connection, Mark!)
> 
> I of course don’t wish to speak unilaterally for the team, so I’d like to share the questions with y’all, along with my own educated-guess answers, and give y’all a chance to correct or improve them. (Or a chance to say my answers seem fine, if in fact they do.)
> 
> Please respond no later than the evening of Monday, November 19. Let’s plan to discuss this at our call then, as well, with an aim to get our response back to Chris by the next day.
> 
>> From: Christopher Power <christopher at ablegamers.com <mailto:christopher at ablegamers.com>>
>> Subject: Re: Player Panel proposal document
>> 
>> Looking at this document it has most of what we need.  The players that you need, you say that you are looking for mobility and visual disabilities.  Just some clarifications on this and I will get this out early this week.
>> 
>> 1) When you say mobility impairments I'm assuming upper limb mobility.  For visual impairments, are you looking for both blind and low-vision?
> 
> Yes to upper-limb mobility impairments, since these are plain old mouse-and-keyboard games, and yes to both blind and low-vision players — right?
> 
>> 2) Approximately how players are you looking for?  With 			this advertisment with the players above, it will go out to about 200 players.  That might generate about 100 players for you.  You do not have to engage with all of them - but if you are only looking for a certain number, we might advertise to a smaller cohort and then snowball sample out for you.  
> 
> This is an interesting question. If we let our available budget dictate this, and we plan to spend the committee’s entire $500 discretionary fund on the $10 Amazon gift-card rewards, then that sets an obvious upper limit of 50 players (assuming that all of them complete their surveys, which I imagine is probably not realistic). I am also mindful that our resources for handling questions from testers is also limited, and I don’t want to overburden that resource (since I reckon that I will personally help with that).
> 
> Do we want to take Chris’s invitation and start with an initial cap of 50 testers, snowballing in another round or two if needed? Or should we stretch to include more testers? (Hoping to hear from crowd-testing veterans on what a good target number is here, and noting that we certainly can push beyond 50 if that would make a significant better final report…)
> 
> I suppose that we could also just accept the whole, no-limit list, and then inform them all that we will proceed to randomly choose 50 as our initial testing group, and treat the remainder as a reserve (to fill in any gaps from non-returned surveys), with a clearly defined schedule so that nobody’s left surprised or confused. But I’m not sure if that would be against the intended use-pattern of Player Panels, somehow?
> 
>> 3) Are you looking in a particular country?
> 
> I reckon that we do not care about country, and require only that testers are fluent with written English — right? (Granted, it’s a good question, since I hadn’t considered that before now.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility-testing mailing list
> Accessibility-testing at iftechfoundation.org
> https://iftechfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-testing

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://iftechfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-testing/attachments/20181115/0de2662e/attachment-0001.html>