Re: accessibility and usability

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:51:49 +0100, Barbara de Zoete wrote:

[F'up set to ciwas-d]

I am getting more and more confused as to the meaning of the words
'accessibility' and 'usability' *in the context of the world wide web*.
What do these two words mean? How do they differ from one another? Where
does the meaning overlap, if it does? Where do they perhaps conflict with
one another, if they do?

Can anyone please explain to someone who is not native speaking, nor
fluent in English?

TIA

So, the two need not have anything to do with one another.

An example of an "Accessible" site that is not "Usable" would be one that
has well written ALT tags and other textual aspects that are easy for a
screen reader (i.e. blind person's web browser) to clearly read. Such as
fully written out names of places, days, dates. Or maybe has a very high
contrast design with relatively large text. However, the layout of the
page is nonsensical, subjects are grouped poorly, there are way too many
topics, or buttons and links, although written in full, accessible
sentences, do not correspond well with the actual link destination. Or
other stuff that makes a site un-Usable.

A site that is Usable but not Accessible might have a very clear layout
and well defined links and structure, but is missing things like ALT tags
or is completely dependent on images for navigation or other things that
reduce accessibility.

IMO, a highly Usable is much more easily made into a highly Accessible
site, if for no other reason than that Usable is Usable to both
fully-functioning people and to the disabled. I mean, all other things
being equal, a highly Usable site is probably more accessible than a
not-so-Usable site.

Of course, "Usable" is kind of a fuzzy metric. Accessible is less fuzzy,
because you can actually look for a checklist of specific features (thus
the existence of Accesibility measurers like Bobby -- I forget the URL).

Does anyone know of a Usability measuring tool akin to Bobby?

later...

--
Jeffrey Silverman
jeffreyPANTS (AT) jhu (DOT) edu
** Drop "PANTS" to reply by email

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffreyPANTS (AT) jhu (DOT) edu> writes:

Of course, "Usable" is kind of a fuzzy metric. Accessible is less fuzzy,
because you can actually look for a checklist of specific features (thus
the existence of Accesibility measurers like Bobby -- I forget the URL).

There are checklists for usability too, in that sense - Neilsen
produces pages upon pages of them. Worth a read, if you haven't
already.

I would disagree that accessibility is less fuzzy than usability -
both can be tested (and indeed you can get a numeric headline figure
out the end if you so desire) but neither can really give a definitive
answer.

Does anyone know of a Usability measuring tool akin to Bobby?

LIFT. (http://www.usablenet.com/)

As with Bobby, it can be useful for picking up certain things, but it
misses other obvious things and must be used with caution. Read what's
already been written in numerous places about the failings of
automatic checkers.

--
Chris

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffreyPANTS (AT) jhu (DOT) edu> writes:

Does anyone know of a Usability measuring tool akin to Bobby?

You measure the relative usability of two site designs by putting users
in front of each, then giving them a task, e.g. "find whether the privacy
policy says your email address might be shared with others."

How much faster one design allows the task to be accomplished measures
how much more usable it is for that task.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jeffrey Silverman wrote:

Does anyone know of a Usability measuring tool akin to Bobby?

It's called Jakob Nielsen. SCNR ;-)