Thread Subject: Cognitive Proposals
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: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Apr 10 2007 5:30 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: David Poehlman: "Re: Cognitive Proposals"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Jamie made the last set of recommendations around addressing cognitive
disabilities [1]. Specifically, she recommended the following three
provisions:
Note that the "should" in the first two provisions makes them
recommendations and not mandatory (shall).
1) 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 âskinâ to simplify the
applicationâs look and feel.
++ EXAMPLE 2 A word processor allows users to hide menu items and tool bar
buttons that they do not find useful.
2) When forms consist of data entry that would be more than two print pages
(standard 12 pt font), the form should be divided into multiple logical Web
pages with next buttons, where the data on each part is saved before
proceeding to the next, and confirmation is allowed before final submission
of the form.
3) Where customization of software or web pages is provided, the method
shall not interfere with accessibility technology or with the user's
display settings.
We should also consider the provisions in WCAG 2.0 that support people with
cognitive disabilities: [2]
3.2.1 On Focus: When any component receives focus, it does not initiate a
change of context.
3.2.2 On Input: Changing the setting of any user interface component does
not automatically cause a change of context unless the user has been
advised of the behavior before using the component.
3.2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on
multiple Web pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative
order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the
user.
3.2.4 Consistent ID: Components that have the same functionality within a
set of Web pages are identified consistently.
3.3.1 Error Identification: If an input error is automatically detected,
the item that is determined to be in error is identified and described to
the user in text.
3.3.2 Error Suggestion: If an input error is detected and suggestions for
correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing the security
or purpose of the content, the suggestions are provided to the user.
3.3.3 Error Prevention: For forms that cause legal commitments or financial
transactions to occur, that modify or delete user-controllable data in data
storage systems, or that submit test responses, at least one of the
following is true:
1. Reversible: Transactions are reversible.
2. Checked: Submitted data is checked for input errors before
going on to the next step in the process.
3. Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming,
and correcting information before finalizing the transaction.
Comments and feedback to the list please.
[1] http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_message.php?id=3068&listid=3
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#meaning
Andi
_______________________________________________
teitac-websoftware mailing list
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
- Next message in Thread: David Poehlman: "Re: Cognitive Proposals"
- Previous message in Thread: None
WebAIM is an initiative of:
