Thread Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

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: Mon, Jun 25 2007 10:00 AM

I have some issues with some of these and I list them here and then follow
each with discussion:
1. Organize the content to serve the reader's needs, considering their
tasks and goals.
dp: considering that the audience for a lot of content is either quite
specific or quite broad, how can this be achieved? How can it be tested
for?

2. Use everyday words that convey meaning clearly and directly.
dp: how long can the words be, how short must they be? I can think of some
really troublesome issues this might cause and again, how testable is this?

3. Uses the present tense and the active voice.
dp: this is not practical since in many instances, it is necessary to use
other opratives to convey the proper meaning. It also might be considered
infringement of right to self expression.

4. Uses short, simple sentences.
dp: how short, how simple? some individuals may have the difficulty that if
it is too simple, it looses meaning for them and much of what needs to be
written cannot be written "simply".

5. Includes useful headings.
dp: I'd broaden this one a bit to say is well structured.

6. Uses lists and tables to simplify complex material.
dp: have you ever seen complex lists and tables? how can lists and tables
simplify anything? Lists and tables do serve a function but they are for
structure and data presentation.

Discussion: Clearly written content improves accessibility for people with
several disabilities, including people with cognitive and reading
disabilities, those whose primary language is American Sign Language and
those reading in Braille.
dp: Braille reading is not a reading disability.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Whitney Quesenbery" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
"TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:20 PM
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Content - proposed wording to address
cognitive impairment challenges


And here's the suggestion for a content requirement:


Authors should follow best practices for creating content that is accessible
for people with disabilities. These guidelines include:

1. Organize the content to serve the reader's needs, considering their
tasks and goals.

2. Use everyday words that convey meaning clearly and directly.

3. Uses the present tense and the active voice.

4. Uses short, simple sentences.

5. Includes useful headings.

6. Uses lists and tables to simplify complex material.
Discussion: Clearly written content improves accessibility for people with
several disabilities, including people with cognitive and reading
disabilities, those whose primary language is American Sign Language and
those reading in Braille.


We were thinking about where these provisions could fit:

The one for interaction could go in:
3 Software & General Behavior Provisions
[3.1] All products

The best fit for the one on content is in the section on 6. Electronic
Content Provisions

It could go in [6.1] If Web Content and Applications, but it's not
restricted to web content - and could include documentation, instructions,
error messages and other content in any E&IT.




At 10:07 AM 6/25/2007, Walser, Kate wrote:


All,



Whitney and I drafted wording to address issues that impact all people
with disabilities, especially those with cognitive impairment. Here's one
related to interaction. Not sure where it should go - maybe Web / Software
or General. Please take a look and pose comments. Whitney will send an
additional one shortly.





X.X - Interaction



Applications should follow best practices for designing interaction
paradigms that are accessible for people with disabilities including:

1. Provide a means to undo actions, such as by resetting the form to the
original information

2. Provide a way to move backwards one step in a process to fix mistakes
or check answers

3. Provide a way to cancel actions before submitting



Discussion:

Well-designed interaction enables people to reverse and reset actions in
case they have made a mistake or are unable to complete a transaction at the
time. It also provides a way for people to explore an interaction without
the threat of modifying their data unintentionally. This is particularly
helpful for all users, especially in cases where they have triggered an
action unintentionally or realize they've made a mistake after they've taken
the action.





Thanks, and best regards,

Kate





Kate Walser

Director, Usability Center of Excellence

SRA International, Inc.

4300 Fair Lakes Court

Fairfax, VA 22033

(703) 502-1170



Whitney Quesenbery
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
phone: 908-638-5467
mobile: 908-328-5959
www.WQusability.com
www.usabilityprofessionals.org

"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University