Thread Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations- configurable userinterfaces

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Mon, Feb 26 2007 12:20 PM

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

I'm really thinking about interfaces adapt to be task specific, rather than ones that change arbitrarily. It is not confusing if controls disapppear if you never need or look for them. However I don't think we are debating whether this has ever been achieved - rather not preventing it being achieved by omission in the regulation


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 David Poehlman
Sent: 24 February 2007 17:22
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations - configurable userinterfaces

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

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Sean Hayes: "Re: Cognitive recommendations- configurableuserinterfaces"