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: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 6:30 PM

Hi Whitney,

> These suggestions are worded as best practices - advisory notes,
> recommendations or "should" provisions, depending on your terminology.
> Although 508 has not had recommendations before, there is no reason why it
> cannot: many other standards do. Or this could be a good way to communicate
> to the Access Board some of the guidelines that are really best practices,
> for inclusion in Advisory Notes.
>

Would it be possible for the Editorial Working Group to propose one or
more ways in which we might present advisory/best-practice ("should")
provisions in our report to the Access Board? Also could the EWG
propose one or more ways that such language be presented by the Access
Board to the public & to agencies? It would be really helpful to have
precise, concrete examples of this that TEITAC members could review and
comment on. There are quite a few places in subcommittee work where the
notion of having advisory/best-practice/sufficient technique language
has come up. I fear much of those ideas will stall until we are
comfortable with one or more structures into which to place such language.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> I agree that content writing guidelines have to be advisory because there
> are so many dependencies on the actual situation (users, context, etc).
>
> By the way, the language suggested here comes from two sources: a new law
> in Oregon and the OMB guidelines on plain language. There are more, but
> these seem to have the broadest acceptance in current best practice, and
> can be applied directly to accessibility.
>
> On the point below (Peter Wallack) about choosing appropriate words for the
> audience, I agree completely. Some of the guidelines have language that
> specifically says that the vocabulary should be appropriate for the
> audience, and that this might include technical or domain-specific
> language. (The OMB also says, "When writing for multiple audiences, tailor
> your writing to the audience with the least expertise.")
>
> Whitney
>
> At 12:19 PM 6/25/2007, Deborah Buck wrote:
>
>
>> I think the distinction is that best practices are not standards. They are
>> nice things to do, but not required. Perhaps inclusion in the standards in
>> not the appropriate consideration for this type of guidance and a better
>> approach might be to recommend that they be addressed through training and
>> support materials. I share the same concerns that have been raised
>> regarding the content- they are easily interpreted differently by the
>> implementer.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Wallack
>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:47 PM
>> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>> Cc: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware] Content - proposed
>> wording to address cognitive impairment challenges
>>
>> I second all of David's concerns, with an additional concern about #2:
>>
>> Use everyday words that convey meaning clearly and directly.
>>
>> Some 'web sites' are intended for professional users only, such as an HR
>> or Purchasing administrative interface. They use words that are 'clear
>> and direct' to them, but not necessarily to others. So this requirement,
>> if acted on at all, must be tempered with an exception for
>> domain-specific jargon.
>>
>> Peter Wallack
>> Accessibility Program Director
>> Oracle Corporation
>>
>>
>>
>> David Poehlman wrote:
>>
>>> 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