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: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Feb 14 2007 1:00 PM

Just my twenty-two cents,

I think this thread started around cognitive disabilities and
the words usability and access for people with specific disabilities to
include the semantics of usable versus accessible.

I like to use the universal design principles used in an
electronic context: Perceptibility (regardless of senses used, to
include chunking, & consistency), Simplicity (understandable,
readability, reading levels for different literacy, to include controls
that varying by user's experience), Operability (physical interactions
regardless of physical ability, perceived physical interaction on
virtual objects), and Forgiveness (minimize possibility for errors; via
confirmation, warnings, allow 'undo' functions, constraining the design
to limit choices).

I also find that there is a hierarchy of needs that also more
closely matches the degree or quality level for these categories. In
order of importance they are functionality, reliability, usability,
proficiency, and creativity. When I see discussion of these things in
this forum, I expect Section 508 related issued to cover all the
functionality.

That is, we ask the question can a person, regardless of
ability, _use_ the _function_ of the electronic information or
electronic technology? To me, this is access. It doesn't mean that is
necessary very usable, the use could be difficult, but specifically it
should be possible. On some level I might use this in conversations as
saying something is accessible; meaning access is possible. The next
question, secondary in a Section 508 approach, is how usable something
is for the user. During an evaluation the question is about usability -
how the functions are being used - is it equivalent for all users? This
is an issue today with determining equivalent facilitation. I think it
is useful in this forum to discuss how we might improve upon what we
have today. Specifically, I'd like to see a model or models that help
"folks entering into the Section 508 domain" be considered as part of
the Section 508 Accessibility Technical Standards.

I need more time with it, but since we are better together than
we are separate, I've tried to put where we are similar on these
concepts into a reference:

1. [gregg uses orient and navigate], [jim uses Orientation], [norman
uses functionality]
2. [gregg uses orient and navigate, [jim uses Navigation, [norman uses
usability (via operability, perceptibility, simplicity, to include
forgiveness)]
3. [gregg and wcag uses operate], [jim uses Operation], [norman uses
operability]
4. [gregg and wcag uses perceive], [jim uses Perception], [norman uses
perceptibility]
5. [gregg and wcag uses understand], [jim uses Comprehension], [norman
uses simplicity]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we would benefit from expounding
upon this subject more. I think the above reference fails to consider
our individual definitions (are they the same or significantly
different?) and exact perspectives but it is offered for your
consideration. It may also be useful to note I use the universal design
principles as they cover both the physical (hardware) and software
(graphic widgets) where WCAG is web-centric. I mention that as there is
cross-over between software and web content in Section 508. I make no
apologizes for continuing to advocate web content is software, all the
software provisions apply to web browsers; the models we use should be
generic to software. Since this is a plain text message, if someone
wants this in a XHTML or any other format, please let me know directly
and I'll convert it as I'm able.

These categories can be useful in driving out confusion in the
terminology used but also for framing how we document an approach for
cognitive issues and for inconsistencies that are exposed by considering
architecture; how we model and how we learn to design accessibility in
these terms. Please let me know if I missed something in the TEITAC Wiki
that already adequately covers this issue. Also, please ask me for any
clarification directly or in this forum if this subject is of interest
to you.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:49 PM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] about the word usable


I may agree that you *can* collapse categories without losing
items, but that's not the point. The point of having all five
is that they are separate functions, and we lose the educational
value if we over-collapse categories. It becomes too abstract,
and new folks entering the domain don't have a good handle to
grasp.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:31 PM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] about the word usable

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