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

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 7:35 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges"
• Previous message in thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Hi Whitney,

So if I may paraphrase/summarize what you are saying... you suggest
that in our drafts of our report to the Access Board, TEITAC include
"should" provisions in-line alongside the "must" provisions; and that
for the final report we either continue with that approach, or perhaps
pull them out into their own section.

I think this is one approach to consider. However, I think we should
consider other approaches as well, and then as TEITAC as a whole
(perhaps at our meeting in July) decide which we want to use.
Specifically I think these other approaches include:
1. Recommending to the Access Board specific text to be placed on
specific Access Board website(s), as explanatory material (cf.
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.21.htm)
2. Recommending to the Access Board that a specific section of
"sufficient techniques" be added as an addendum/appendix to the
standards; or as a complementary document to the standards

Just as having the May 30 draft has been very helpful in surfacing
issues and focusing thoughts around how the language will be used and
thereby what further changes in the language are needed, I think it
would be likewise helpful to see at least sketches of advisory language
in several different draft structures and locations. Thus, I think it
would be helpful to have a draft of "sufficient techniques" text
gathered together in a draft appendix/addendum to the standards. At the
risk of asking the already heroic and overworked EWG to do yet still
more work... is that something we could see?


Thanks!

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Hi Peter and all
>
>
>> Would it be possible for the Editorial Working Group to propose one or
>> more ways in which we might present 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.
>>
>
>
> For now, we can simply include any advisory/best-practice ("should")
> provisions. As you probably know, many standards and regulations do contain
> "should" provisions, although 508 does not.
>
> The Documentation subcommittee has already included two of them:
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#D._Advisory_Notes
> and
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Advisory_Notes
>
> For now, I think we can simply add them in the section with other related
> requirements. This will make them easy to find and discuss (just because
> they are advisory does not mean they do not need the same care as other
> provisions we draft).
>
> In the final report, we may choose to keep them in the main sections
> (clearly identified as related Advisory Notes), or to group them all in a
> single section.
>
> I think that Advisory Notes are a good way to communicate good practices
> that are helpful in improving accessibility, but which are difficult to
> make a requirement because they require some judgement in application or
> which may be a good "heuristic" (rule of thumb) but for which there are
> always exceptions. (An example of both are rules like "Use active voice,
> not passive" - it's a good rule, but there are hard-to-define exceptions
> where passive is the right decision.)
>
>
> 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."
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges"
• Previous message in Thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges"