Thread Subject: Re: about the word usable

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Jan 31 2007 9:15 AM

This is very interesting.

I have been looking at another dimension of categorizing accessibility
standards, and
obviously usability factors in exactly as you describe.

Here's what I have so far, based on looking at the existing 255 and 508
standards:

Orientation: discovering what the product does and how it works
Navigation: finding the proper path to the intended function
Operation: manipulating the product's controls
Perception: receiving content and status information
Comprehension: integrating and using the information

But something tells me that somewhere, someone more authoritative has
already done
this. Whitney (and anyone else), are you aware of a "Standard work" on the
subject
of categorizing the specific parts of using a product to accomplish a
function?

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias

-----Original Message-----
From: Whitney Quesenbery [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:40 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] about the word usable

Hajime,

Thank you for the explanation - I completely agree with you: usability and
accessibility are related, but different.

A slight digression from the topic of structure, but just to follow up on
the relationship:

In thinking about cognitive disabilities, the line between "usability for
all" and "access for people with specific disabilities" becomes quite
blurry. In the voting system standards (VVSG) for example, we created a
group of requirements around clear language, perception and understandable
navigation -- but put them in the general usability section. We did this
because they applied to all voters, not just those with cognitive
disabilities. These requirements are very difficult to draft in a testable
manner, however. It's easier when the standard is for a specific type of
product, of course.

Whitney



At 10:24 AM 1/31/2007, Yamada@TOYO-UNIV wrote:

>Whitney,
>
>For example, a website which only contains texts is "accessible" by
>everyone. However, if the structure of the website is not the one ordinary
>people expect, or if the texts include a lot of jargons that are difficult
>to understand by ordinary people, we feel the website is not "usable" or
>"easy to use."
>
>In Japan, ordinary people use the word "bike" to express the motored
>two-wheel vehicle (Honda, Yamaha and Kawasaki's.) But the government
>officials use "light weight motored vehicle" instead of "bike," because
>"light weight motored vehicle" is the word used in the related legislation.
>Therefore, many people face difficulty in getting information from
>governmental website when they want to know how to register "bike." In this
>case, the website itself is "accessible" but not "usable."
>
>I found the word "usable" in your proposal. Thus I made the comment. But
now
>I know you changed the word in your proposal. Thank you for the
>modification.
>
>Hajime Yamada
>
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University