Conducting Accessibility Research In An Inaccessible Ecosystem<\/h1>\nMichele Williams<\/address>\n 2024-04-25T12:00:00+00:00
\n 2024-05-01T16:05:07+00:00
\n <\/header>\n
Ensuring technology is accessible and inclusive relies heavily on receiving feedback directly from disabled users. You cannot rely solely on checklists, guidelines, and good-faith guesses to get things right. This is often hindered, however, by a lack of accessible prototypes available to use during testing.<\/p>\n
Rather than wait for the digital landscape to change, researchers should leverage all the available tools they can use to create and replicate the testing environments they need to get this important research completed. Without it, we will continue to have a primarily inaccessible and not inclusive technology landscape that will never be disrupted.<\/p>\n
Note<\/strong>: I use \u201cidentity first\u201d disability language (as in \u201cdisabled people\u201d) rather than \u201cpeople first\u201d language (as in \u201cpeople with disabilities\u201d). Identity first language aligns with disability advocates who see disability as a human trait description or even community and not a subject to be avoided or shamed. For more, review \u201cWriting Respectfully: Person-First and Identity-First Language<\/a>\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\nAccessibility-focused Research In All Phases<\/h2>\n
When people advocate that UX Research should include disabled participants, it\u2019s often with the mindset that this will happen on the final product once development is complete. One primary reason is because that\u2019s when researchers have access to the most<\/em> accessible artifact with which to run the study. However,<\/p>\n\n\n <\/p>\nThe real ability to ensure an accessible and inclusive system is not by evaluating a final product at the end of a project; it\u2019s by assessing user needs at the start and then evaluating the iterative prototypes along the way. <\/p>\n
<\/a>\n <\/p>\n
\n\n \u201c<\/span><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nPrototype Research Should Include Disabled Participants<\/h3>\n
In general, the iterative prototype phase of a project is when teams explore various design options and make decisions that will influence the final project outcome. Gathering feedback from representative users during this phase can help teams make informed decisions, including key pivots before significant development and testing resources are used.<\/p>\n
During the prototype phase of user testing, the representative users should include disabled participants. By collecting feedback and perspectives of people with a variety of disabilities in early design testing phases, teams can more thoughtfully incorporate key considerations and supplement accessibility guidelines with real-world feedback. This early-and-often approach<\/strong> is the best way to include accessibility and inclusivity into a process and ensure a more accessible final product.<\/p>\nIf you instead wait to include disabled participants in research until a product is near final, this inevitably leads to patchwork fixes of any critical feedback. Then, for feedback not deemed critical, it will likely get \u201cbacklogged\u201d where the item priorities compete with new feature updates<\/strong>. With this approach, you\u2019ll constantly be playing catch-up rather than getting it right up front and in an elegant and integrated way.<\/p>\nAccessibility Research Can\u2019t Wait Until The End<\/h3>\n
Not only does research with disabled participants often occur too late in a project, but it is also far too often viewed as separate from other research studies (sometimes referred to as the \u201cmain research\u201d). It cannot be understated that this reinforces the notion of separate-and-not-equal<\/strong> as compared to non-disabled participants and other stakeholder feedback. This has a severe negative impact on how a team will view the priority of inclusive design and, more broadly, the value of disabled people. That is, this reinforces \u201cableism<\/a>\u201d, a devaluing of disabled people in society.<\/p>\n\n
\n 2024-05-01T16:05:07+00:00
\n <\/header>\n
Accessibility-focused Research In All Phases<\/h2>\n
When people advocate that UX Research should include disabled participants, it\u2019s often with the mindset that this will happen on the final product once development is complete. One primary reason is because that\u2019s when researchers have access to the most<\/em> accessible artifact with which to run the study. However,<\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n The real ability to ensure an accessible and inclusive system is not by evaluating a final product at the end of a project; it\u2019s by assessing user needs at the start and then evaluating the iterative prototypes along the way. <\/p>\n <\/a>\n <\/p>\n In general, the iterative prototype phase of a project is when teams explore various design options and make decisions that will influence the final project outcome. Gathering feedback from representative users during this phase can help teams make informed decisions, including key pivots before significant development and testing resources are used.<\/p>\n During the prototype phase of user testing, the representative users should include disabled participants. By collecting feedback and perspectives of people with a variety of disabilities in early design testing phases, teams can more thoughtfully incorporate key considerations and supplement accessibility guidelines with real-world feedback. This early-and-often approach<\/strong> is the best way to include accessibility and inclusivity into a process and ensure a more accessible final product.<\/p>\n If you instead wait to include disabled participants in research until a product is near final, this inevitably leads to patchwork fixes of any critical feedback. Then, for feedback not deemed critical, it will likely get \u201cbacklogged\u201d where the item priorities compete with new feature updates<\/strong>. With this approach, you\u2019ll constantly be playing catch-up rather than getting it right up front and in an elegant and integrated way.<\/p>\n Not only does research with disabled participants often occur too late in a project, but it is also far too often viewed as separate from other research studies (sometimes referred to as the \u201cmain research\u201d). It cannot be understated that this reinforces the notion of separate-and-not-equal<\/strong> as compared to non-disabled participants and other stakeholder feedback. This has a severe negative impact on how a team will view the priority of inclusive design and, more broadly, the value of disabled people. That is, this reinforces \u201cableism<\/a>\u201d, a devaluing of disabled people in society.<\/p>\n\n
Prototype Research Should Include Disabled Participants<\/h3>\n
Accessibility Research Can\u2019t Wait Until The End<\/h3>\n
\n