Thread Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations- configurableuserinterfaces

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: Sean Hayes
Date: Fri, Feb 23 2007 3:30 PM

Well I agree, it depends on how 'automatic' is done; there are a million ways to do it badly. But the provision shouldn't prevent someone who does it well from selling to the Feds.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: 23 February 2007 22:10
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations - configurableuserinterfaces

I don't like the automatic unless it is easily (and obviously) defeatable.
Otherwise it actually adds to cognitive complexity.

But the simple - with a way to increase for power users can be very effective.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Sean
> Hayes
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:21 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
> configurableuserinterfaces
>
> What about complex applications that simplify their interfaces
> automatically, or as the out of the box setting; but which can be made
> more complex by 'power users'
>
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Smith, Jamie
> Sent: 23 February 2007 21:16
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
> configurable userinterfaces
>
> I'm glad you started the wording. I made a couple changes.
> 1. Added "for complex applications" and removed "with a cognitive
> disability" as this simplification would benefit speech users as well
> as typical users.
> Here it is.
>
> For complex applications, software should provide a mechanism enabling
> users to simplify the interface look and feel such as hiding or
> displaying information or command buttons.
>
> Example 1: A user would be able to hide or show a tree structure or
> detail data information.
> Example 2: A user may select from a list of topics (grouped) and link
> to more detailed information.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:19 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations - configurable
> userinterfaces
>
>
> Also on the cognitive topic, we need to develop a proposal around this
> recommendation from Dr. Lewis:
>
> - provision for suppressing unneeded functions
>
> There are several challenges in coming up with something to address
> this.
> One challenge is testability and the other is the feeling that this
> doesn't need to be applied in all cases. Some software user interfaces
> and websites are very simple and probably don't need to do this. There
> are also issues of users forgetting that they have suppressed some
> functions and not being able to find them again when they do need them
> so a requirement to reset to the default configuration might be
> needed.
>
> The ISO and ANSI software accessibility standards address this by
> providing a recommendation, but it is not a requirement for
> conformance to the
> standard:
>
> Software should provide a mechanism enabling users to individualise
> the interface look and feel including the modification or hiding of
> command buttons.
> - EXAMPLE 1 A user with a cognitive disability may, when using a given
> application, change the interface via a "skin"
> to simplify the application's look and feel.
> - EXAMPLE 2 A word processor allows users to hide menu items and tool
> bar buttons that they do not find useful.
>
> 508 doesn't have the concept of optional requirements but other Access
> Board standards do. For example, the ADA building standards contain
> advisory provisions.
>
> Should we recommend this ISO/ANSI provision as an advisory provision
> in
> 508 or can somebody think of something else we could recommend as a
> required provision to address Dr. Lewis'
> recommendation?
>
> Andi
>

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