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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 31 2007 12:35 PM

Hi Jim,

I did a chapter from a couple years ago that used

Perceive
Orient and Navigate
Operate
Understand

Which is much like your

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


Later I collapsed this into

Perceive
Operate
Understand

I found that items that would go into orient were also either perception or
understanding issues and navigation was part of operation or else was
orient.

I used these three in our new on-line tool we are working on. And the User
Needs from that tool is what I gave to SWG and that is now the SWG User
Needs doc.


IN WCAG we use

Perceive
Operate
Understand

As well.


Those are the only places I know of that use that approach to categorizing.
I was thinking of suggesting it here but people seemed to want to look at
product characteristic rather than user need so I didn't pursue it. Would
be happy to show what that might look like too. I have lots of material
arranged in that order.



Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:09 AM
> To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] about the word usable
>
> 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