Thread Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations -configurable userinterfaces

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: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Feb 24 2007 10:25 AM

I liike start simple but not automatic as changing interfaces are
often more confusing than helpful unless the changes are under user
control.

On Feb 23, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Sean Hayes wrote:

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:teitac-
= 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