Thread Subject: Re: Cognitive Proposals
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: Barrett, Don
Date: Wed, May 09 2007 10:15 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Cognitive Proposals"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I agree with peter on this.
Sent from my Nokia Handheld with BlackBerry Connect
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wed May 09 23:12:33 2007
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive Proposals
I'm uncomfortable recommending 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 for desktop
applications. We discussed this a bit last week I think.
There are a number of very complex software applications - in large
measure necessarily complex for they are accomplishing very complex
tasks. Think for a moment about a video editing suite where a video
production is being composed from multiple video and audio tracks, with
cross-fading of various video and audio sources, etc. I would not be
surprised if some of these products find it more efficient for these
expert users to in some cases have a focus change initiate a change of
context, or in some cases for user input to likewise automatically
change context (with no clear immediate indication that such the behavior).
It is one thing for a web site - and most specifically a government
created website for the general public - to meet these standards for
cognitive impairments. It is quite another to require that of highly
specialized software such as in my example above. And I'm not sure how
effective a "fundamental alteration" argument would be in this context.
We know from experience that one need not loose blind access and support
for AT in order to make a highly efficient and productive software
product for complex workflow. We have no such experience in similar
situations for folks with cognitive impairments - and anecdotal evidence
to the contrary.
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> At last week's meeting, we discussed the WCAG 2.0 provisions that benefit people with cognitive disabilities. The feeling of some in the group was that these sound like good recommendations that warrant further consideration and discussion and that we need to know which ones are Level 1 and which are Level 2 in WCAG. Please see below and review these again.
> * Should we recommend these as new provisions for Section 508? Level 1 only or Level 1 and 2?
> * Should we recommend them for both Web and software or for Web only?
> Level 1
> * 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.
> * 3.3.1 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.
> Level 2.
> * 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.
> * 3.3.2 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.
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Cognitive Proposals"