Expanding the web's potential for people with disabilities

Getting Started

Introduction to web accessibility

WebAIM Training

May 21-22
Training Details

From the Blog

Community

You are here: Home > TEITAC Archives > Mailing List Archives

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.

Return to this mailing list's archives

Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

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."

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

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

Previous message | Next message

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

<html>
<body>
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: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
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 
 
 </blockquote>
<x-sigsep></x-sigsep>
 
Whitney Quesenbery 
Whitney Interactive Design 
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 
phone: 908-638-5467 
mobile: 908-328-5959  
<a href="http://www.wqusability.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.WQusability.com 
</a><a href="http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.usabilityprofessionals.org</a>  
"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they
appear."</body>
</html>

Previous message | Next message

From: Peter Wallack
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: 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."
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Previous message | Next message

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

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."
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
>
>

Previous message | Next message

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

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.

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."
> >
> >
> >
> >
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
> >
> >
> >

Previous message | Next message

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

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."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

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."

Previous message | Next message

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

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."
>
>

Previous message |

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Content - proposed wording to address cognitive impairment challenges

Peter (and all)

The "heroic and overworked EWG" is ready to serve. Our mission is to pull
together material that the TEITAC wants to present to the Access Board in a
format that makes it as easy as possible for the committee to consider and
the Access Board to read.

As you say, just gathering the material starts the process of surfacing
issues. Form can follow function.

Whitney

At 08:30 PM 6/27/2007, Peter Korn wrote:

>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."
> >
> >

WebAIM is an initiative of: