Thread Subject: Re: Cognitiverecommendations-configurableuserinterfaces

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Feb 23 2007 9:20 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

We currently don't have any provision for recommendations in 508 or 255.
there is in the ADAAG.

It would be good to have advisory but we would need more time to do it very
well.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Barrett, Don
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:55 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> Cognitiverecommendations-configurableuserinterfaces
>
> 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: None