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: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Feb 24 2007 10:30 AM

I like this because it is already in practice todday.

On Feb 23, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Smith, Jamie wrote:

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