diff --git a/slides/best-practices.html b/slides/best-practices.html
index 17ec98797dd1ac9db9e0e740f4021b32923e8e94..92248dbfd7f9deb0b00ef3f735b2aff0317751ce 100644
--- a/slides/best-practices.html
+++ b/slides/best-practices.html
@@ -34,9 +34,9 @@ Building for Accessibility
- Structure impacts navigation order
- Need to announce things that change
+<!-- [//]: # TODO expand this slide deck? IT's short and could cover more. Also discuss how this should impact the report -->
---
-[//]: # TODO expand this slide deck? IT's short and could cover more. Also discuss how this should impact the report
# Why isn't the World Already Accessible?
@@ -51,11 +51,6 @@ Testing accessibility is also hard!
**Organizations impact accessibility**
-Designs have a big role in what is accessible
-
-Programmers also of course very important
-
-These days, a lot of it is created by end users
---
# Who Creates Accessibility?
@@ -64,9 +59,6 @@ Organizations impact accessibility
**Designs have a big role in what is accessible**
-Programmers also of course very important
-
-These days, a lot of it is created by end users
---
# How might UX Designers address Accessibility
@@ -84,29 +76,47 @@ Organizations impact accessibility
Designs have a big role in what is accessible
-**Programmers also of course very important**
+**Developers also of course very important**
- Need to understand the expectations of APIs and accessibility technologies
- Need to understand screen readers
-These days, a lot of it is created by end users
---
-[//]: # TODO fill in
-# What do Programmers already know about access?
+# How do practitioners enact accessibility in practice?
[Accessibility in Software Practice](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3503508)
-???
-Summarize this more...
+- data from 15 interviews and 365 survey respondents from 26 countries across five continents --> 120+ unique codes
+- followed up with a survey --> 44 statements grouped into eight topics on accessibility from practitioners’ viewpoints and different software development stages.
+
---
-[//]: # TODO fill in
-# Organizational Issues
+# Organizational & People Challenges
-<!-- --- -->
-<!-- # How might Designers address Accessibility -->
+.quote[Before making any decisions about “Accessibilityâ€: stakeholders (e.g., designers, architects, developers, testers, and clients) in a project should
+reach a consensus on accessibility development and design]
-<!-- <iframe src="https://embed.polleverywhere.com/free_text_polls/sL5v5Ufo0sHFBmmC15MPV?controls=none&short_poll=true" width="800px" height="600px"></iframe> -->
+| Challenge | Recommendation |
+|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
+| Lack of resources | Long-term organizational buy-in and budget |
+| Culture | Cooperative Culture |
+| Size (too small) | Work with customers & teams to prioritize access |
+| Inadequate expertise & education | Include accessibility expertise among team members |
+| Lack of QA to go with developer effort | Include accessibility on testing team |
+
+---
+# Process Challenges (technical)
+
+Notice details of WCAG guidelines low on this list!
+
+| Challenge | Recommendation |
+|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
+| Unclear requirements & planning | Include accessibility at all stages |
+| Unclear scope & architecture requirements | Engage with relevant end users |
+| Difficulty testing | Use appropriate testing suites & integration testing |
+| Lack of complete access practices | Rigorous refactoring |
+| Innapropriate tools | Well-designed documentation & training |
+| Domain-dependent issues | Appropriate end user engagement and testing |
---
# Who Creates Accessibility?
@@ -115,11 +125,10 @@ Organizations impact accessibility
Designs have a big role in what is accessible
-Programmers also of course very important
+Developers also of course very important
**These days, a lot of it is created by end users**
- This means that you have to think about *indirect* impacts on content creation too (i.e. what do you expose to end users in authoring tools)?
-- Will talk more about this next week, but crowdsourcing & online social networks part of this too
---
[//]: # (Outline Slide)
@@ -133,7 +142,6 @@ Building for Accessibility
- Structure impacts navigation order
- Need to announce things that change
-
---
# (On-desktop) screen reader interaction
Three core interaction patterns:
diff --git a/slides/comparing-approaches.html b/slides/comparing-approaches.html
index a91558cc3be09d60ff48dc078af81027129a0ebd..784aa03544efcaf51ef57c59e2303428b4a61381 100644
--- a/slides/comparing-approaches.html
+++ b/slides/comparing-approaches.html
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
---
layout: presentation
-title: FOOBAR --Week N--
+title: Comparing Assessment Techniques
description: Accessibility
class: middle, center, inverse
---
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ background-image: url(img/people.png)
.left-column50[
# Welcome to the Future of Access Technologies
-Week N, FOOBAR
+Comparing Assessment Techniques
{{site.classnum}}, {{site.quarter}}
]
@@ -61,8 +61,7 @@ How do you get a system to the point where user testing is worth doing?
[Is your web page accessible? A comparative study...](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1054972.1054979)
-Gather baseline problem data on 4 sites
-- Usability study
+Gather baseline problem data on 4 sites (Usability Study)
Test same sites with other techniques
- Expert review with guidelines
@@ -101,11 +100,11 @@ AT the time, WCAG 1; Meeting WCAG priority 1 guidelines did not address all seve
# Results -- Grocery
.left-column50[
-
+
]
.right-column50[
-
+
]
---
# Results -- Grocery
@@ -124,7 +123,7 @@ Easiest site
]
.right-column50[
-
+
]
---
# Results -- Find Names
@@ -139,7 +138,7 @@ Easiest site
]
.right-column50[
-
+
]
---
@@ -174,7 +173,7 @@ Most difficult site
]
.right-column50[
-
+
]
---
@@ -243,32 +242,41 @@ No correlation between developer severity and WCAG priority or empirical severit
---
# H1: Methods Don't Differ
-.left-column50[
-- Screen reader and Expert Review found more problems
-]
-.right-column50[
-
+.left-column[
+Manual Review found lots of porblems
]
-???
+.right-column[
+<!-- <div class="mermaid"> -->
+<!-- pie title Problems Found by Condition -->
+<!-- "Dev. Review" : 8 -->
+<!-- "Guidelines Only" : 10 -->
+<!-- "Remote" : 9 -->
+<!-- </div> -->
-Note small differences between individual developers in finding problems
+
-Difference between remote and screen reader group is significant
+]
---
# H1: Methods Don't Differ
-.left-column50[
-- Screen reader and Expert Review found more problems
-- Screen reader and Expert Review most valid
+.left-column[
+Manual Review as effective as remote screen reader users: % of problems reported in each condition that matched known problems
]
-.right-column50[
-
+
+.right-column[
+
]
-???
-Note small differences between individual developers in finding problems
+---
+# H1: Methods Don't Differ
+.left-column[
+Manual Review as effective as remote screen reader users: % of known accessibility problems found in each condition
+]
+
+.right-column[
+
+]
-Difference between remote and screen reader group is significant
---
# H2: Techniques find Different Problems
@@ -335,27 +343,27 @@ Many (perhaps all) of these are part of guidelines now
- E8: Poor names
- E9: Popups
----
-# H2: Techniques find Different Types of Problems
+<!-- --- -->
+<!-- # H2: Techniques find Different Types of Problems -->
-- High variance among individual reviewers
-- Screen reader novices did best at both major types of problems
+<!-- - High variance among individual reviewers -->
+<!-- - Screen reader novices did best at both major types of problems -->
-
+<!--  -->
-???
-Explain chart
-also tracks heuristic eval literature: Five Evaluators find ~50% of Problems
-Individuals don't do well, but they *differ* from each other
+<!-- ??? -->
+<!-- Explain chart -->
+<!-- also tracks heuristic eval literature: Five Evaluators find ~50% of Problems -->
+<!-- Individuals don't do well, but they *differ* from each other -->
---
-# Discussion
+# Other findings
-Hyp 1: Screen reader most consistently effective
+<!-- Hyp 1: Screen reader most consistently effective -->
-Hyp 2: All but automated comparable
+<!-- Hyp 2: All but automated comparable -->
-- Screen missed only tables (w3); poor defaults (empirical)
+<!-- - Screen missed only tables (w3); poor defaults (empirical) -->
Really need multiple evaluators
@@ -363,16 +371,16 @@ Remote technique needs improvement, could fare better
Accessibility experience would probably change results
----
-# Discussion
+<!-- --- -->
+<!-- # Discussion -->
-Asymptotic testing needed
-- Can’t be sure we found all empirical problems
+<!-- Asymptotic testing needed -->
+<!-- - Can’t be sure we found all empirical problems -->
-Falsification testing needed
-- Are problems not in empirical data set really false positives?
+<!-- Falsification testing needed -->
+<!-- - Are problems not in empirical data set really false positives? -->
-More consistent problem reporting & comparison beneficial
+<!-- More consistent problem reporting & comparison beneficial -->
Limitations
- Web only
diff --git a/slides/img/assessment/IDCondition.pdf b/slides/img/assessment/IDCondition.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d6543c1ab2a850fd57a3a79f1a15286c1af1caa
Binary files /dev/null and b/slides/img/assessment/IDCondition.pdf differ
diff --git a/slides/img/assessment/IDCondition.png b/slides/img/assessment/IDCondition.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..353eae6870345ee39c89b31d3ec8e46729c5bb6d
Binary files /dev/null and b/slides/img/assessment/IDCondition.png differ
diff --git a/slides/img/assessment/Thoroughness.pdf b/slides/img/assessment/Thoroughness.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb6b4adbf6692fc951005cb091872ea7386474b5
Binary files /dev/null and b/slides/img/assessment/Thoroughness.pdf differ
diff --git a/slides/img/assessment/Thoroughness.png b/slides/img/assessment/Thoroughness.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd8c859ee6bbc7a9b76ae25a19e9989a390b2948
Binary files /dev/null and b/slides/img/assessment/Thoroughness.png differ
diff --git a/slides/img/assessment/Validity.pdf b/slides/img/assessment/Validity.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92593e6cdcfb3bf4a0f518cd17a269086d3303db
Binary files /dev/null and b/slides/img/assessment/Validity.pdf differ
diff --git a/slides/img/assessment/Validity.png b/slides/img/assessment/Validity.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48a56b455280ddb3012ead144ccad32619da9458
Binary files /dev/null and b/slides/img/assessment/Validity.png differ
diff --git a/slides/img/assessment/validity.png b/slides/img/assessment/validity.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 96a4890cee1c479eadb5000383218e9dedea4a62..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Binary files a/slides/img/assessment/validity.png and /dev/null differ