Thread Subject: Re: Cognitiverecommendations -configurableuserinterfaces

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Fri, Feb 23 2007 8:05 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Cognitiverecommendations -configurableuserinterfaces"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

We could certainly make this a strong recommendation in either the
preamble or perhaps Subpart A. Would the General subcommittee undertake
such an idea?
I am not sure that user control of the interface could ever become a
requirement for a number of reasons: subjective nature of user control,
development costs, judging conformance or non-conformance (many vendors
will say their software is simple because it is logical to anyone
familiar with the subject matter). I don't want to see it go away, but
perhaps exist as a strong recommendation as Andy suggests.

Don Barrett




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 6:11 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitiverecommendations
-configurableuserinterfaces

I don't know that anyone can do it well enough from what I have seen ---
and
even because of the basic underlying assumptions. Changing things
without
user control is not good for cognitive disability.

Having expressed my opinion/skepticism on this, I agree that
prohibiting
smart simplification would be beyond what we should be doing. I
wouldn't
recommend it but I don't think we should prohibit it unless there was
very
good reason to believe that it was really harmful.


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 4:28 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations
> -configurableuserinterfaces
>
> 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
> >

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Cognitiverecommendations -configurableuserinterfaces"