Thread Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations-configurableuserinterfaces
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: Smith, Jamie
Date: Mon, Feb 26 2007 6:15 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Smith, Jamie: "Re: Cognitive recommendations-configurable userinterfaces"
- Previous message in thread: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD): "Re: Cognitive recommendations-configurableuserinterfaces"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
For me there isn't much change in thought. I wasn't neglecting to
differentiate should and shall. I was focused on trying to see if there
is some way to clarify the concept of "complex" or "when it was
necessary to require this concept which would make it easier for both
folks with cognitive issues or even with simplifying pages for speech
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 3:34 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations
We don't have 'shoulds' in 508 or 255 at this time
Do we mean SHALL? Does this change our thoughts?
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 11:23 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
> 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
> 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
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:19 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations - configurable
> 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
> 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
> The ISO and ANSI software accessibility standards address this by
> providing a recommendation, but it is not a requirement for
> conformance to the
> 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
> 508 or can somebody think of something else we could recommend as a
> required provision to address Dr. Lewis' recommendation?
- Next message in Thread: Smith, Jamie: "Re: Cognitive recommendations-configurable userinterfaces"
- Previous message in Thread: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD): "Re: Cognitive recommendations-configurableuserinterfaces"