Accessibility auditing is so funny to propose to academics in HCI.
Engineering researchers hate it because it makes evaluation really slow.
Behavioral researchers hate it because it isn't fully empirical.
Design researchers hate it because it is telling them what is "standard"
Engineering researchers hate it because it makes evaluation really slow.
Behavioral researchers hate it because it isn't fully empirical.
Design researchers hate it because it is telling them what is "standard"
This core activity - one that stretches across every major industry as THE main methodology for capturing access barriers in technology is disliked by all 3 of the main camps of researchers in human-computer interaction.
The academic research vs industry divide here is immense.
The academic research vs industry divide here is immense.
Heck, even industry research relies heavily on a close relationship to auditing, QA, standards, etc.
Academic HCI researchers are grossly opposed to these sorts of things.
Academic HCI researchers are grossly opposed to these sorts of things.
But auditing can teach each of these 3 camps something:
- Some evaluation is qualitatively better when it isn't automated.
- Some knowledge is valuable and usable even if it isn't empirical.
- Some "standards" are more about interrogating your materials than reaching an outcome.
- Some evaluation is qualitatively better when it isn't automated.
- Some knowledge is valuable and usable even if it isn't empirical.
- Some "standards" are more about interrogating your materials than reaching an outcome.
I genuinely believe that accessibility auditing is a para-methodology that all HCI researchers (engineering, behavioral, and design) should at least try once.
It works beautifully alongside all of their own existing methods (hence "para"-methodology).
It works beautifully alongside all of their own existing methods (hence "para"-methodology).
Auditing is a powerful tool for a creator because of how close and careful it requires the auditor to be to a design. Sure, some of it can be automated. But most of it cannot.
Close interaction with design materials using a set of low-level (but open) heuristics is important.
Close interaction with design materials using a set of low-level (but open) heuristics is important.
In a similar vein to the methods divide of close/distant reading in the humanities, auditing is a practice of closeness.
The knowledge produced here is deeply valuable and more importantly: something that the creator can use to make something better. It is usable!
The knowledge produced here is deeply valuable and more importantly: something that the creator can use to make something better. It is usable!
Is a set of accessibility heuristics or criteria (like WCAG or Chartability) the ultimate set of perfect knowledge? No!
It is obviously beneficial for catching access barriers. But it is also useful for generating a common starting point for accessible design practice.
It is obviously beneficial for catching access barriers. But it is also useful for generating a common starting point for accessible design practice.
Anyway, this thread is just me lamenting how narrowly academics produce and criticize knowledge and how auditing actually adds an immensely important dimension of consideration that they mostly neglect.
Even some accessibility research projects fail to follow standards like WCAG
Even some accessibility research projects fail to follow standards like WCAG
Getting on the same starting page is good, especially if everyone acknowledges that the starting page is not the ending page and much more work needs to be done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
