Thread Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations -configurableuserinterfaces

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Feb 23 2007 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations -configurableuserinterfaces

I don't like the automatic unless it is easily (and obviously) defeatable.
Otherwise it actually adds to cognitive complexity.

But the simple - with a way to increase for power users can be very
effective.

Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:21 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
> configurableuserinterfaces
>
> What about complex applications that simplify their
> interfaces automatically, or as the out of the box setting;
> but which can be made more complex by 'power users'
>
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Smith, Jamie
> Sent: 23 February 2007 21:16
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
> configurable userinterfaces
>
> I'm glad you started the wording. I made a couple changes.
> 1. Added "for complex applications" and removed "with a
> cognitive disability" as this simplification would benefit
> speech users as well as typical users.
> Here it is.
>
> For complex applications, software should provide a mechanism
> enabling users to simplify the interface look and feel such
> as hiding or displaying information or command buttons.
>
> Example 1: A user would be able to hide or show a tree
> structure or detail data information.
> Example 2: A user may select from a list of topics (grouped)
> and link to more detailed information.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:19 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
> configurable userinterfaces
>
>
> Also on the cognitive topic, we need to develop a proposal
> around this recommendation from Dr. Lewis:
>
> - provision for suppressing unneeded functions
>
> There are several challenges in coming up with something to
> address this.
> One challenge is testability and the other is the feeling
> that this doesn't need to be applied in all cases. Some
> software user interfaces and websites are very simple and
> probably don't need to do this. There are also issues of
> users forgetting that they have suppressed some functions and
> not being able to find them again when they do need them so a
> requirement to reset to the default configuration might be needed.
>
> The ISO and ANSI software accessibility standards address
> this by providing a recommendation, but it is not a
> requirement for conformance to the
> standard:
>
> Software should provide a mechanism enabling users to
> individualise the interface look and feel including the
> modification or hiding of command buttons.
> - EXAMPLE 1 A user with a cognitive disability may, when
> using a given application, change the interface via a "skin"
> to simplify the application's look and feel.
> - EXAMPLE 2 A word processor allows users to hide menu items
> and tool bar buttons that they do not find useful.
>
> 508 doesn't have the concept of optional requirements but
> other Access Board standards do. For example, the ADA
> building standards contain advisory provisions.
>
> Should we recommend this ISO/ANSI provision as an advisory
> provision in
> 508 or can somebody think of something else we could
> recommend as a required provision to address Dr. Lewis'
> recommendation?
>
> Andi
>

From: Smith, Jamie
Date: Fri, Feb 23 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations -configurable userinterfaces

Didn't think in the reverse... I a web person, and assist with application as best practices and helping to find users that will test applications. I usually find applications that need something like this and don't have it.

There are some applications that would not need to use this technique at all. Is there some way in the wording to make sure the technique is needed? <sigh> This is where user testing is often of benefit.

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Feb 24 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations -configurable userinterfaces

I liike start simple but not automatic as changing interfaces are
often more confusing than helpful unless the changes are under user
control.

On Feb 23, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Sean Hayes wrote:

What about complex applications that simplify their interfaces
automatically, or as the out of the box setting; but which can be
made more complex by 'power users'


Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Smith, Jamie
Sent: 23 February 2007 21:16
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
configurable userinterfaces

I'm glad you started the wording. I made a couple changes. 1. Added
"for complex applications" and removed "with a cognitive disability"
as this simplification would benefit speech users as well as typical
users.
Here it is.

For complex applications, software should provide a mechanism
enabling users to simplify the interface look and feel such as hiding
or displaying information or command buttons.

Example 1: A user would be able to hide or show a tree structure or
detail data information.
Example 2: A user may select from a list of topics (grouped) and
link to more detailed information.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:19 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
configurable userinterfaces


Also on the cognitive topic, we need to develop a proposal around
this recommendation from Dr. Lewis:

- provision for suppressing unneeded functions

There are several challenges in coming up with something to address
this.
One challenge is testability and the other is the feeling that this
doesn't need to be applied in all cases. Some software user
interfaces and websites are very simple and probably don't need to do
this. There are also issues of users forgetting that they have
suppressed some functions and not being able to find them again when
they do need them so a requirement to reset to the default
configuration might be needed.

The ISO and ANSI software accessibility standards address this by
providing a recommendation, but it is not a requirement for
conformance to the
standard:

Software should provide a mechanism enabling users to individualise
the interface look and feel including the modification or hiding of
command buttons.
- EXAMPLE 1 A user with a cognitive disability may, when using a
given application, change the interface via a "skin" to simplify the
application's look and feel.
- EXAMPLE 2 A word processor allows users to hide menu items and tool
bar buttons that they do not find useful.

508 doesn't have the concept of optional requirements but other
Access Board standards do. For example, the ADA building standards
contain advisory provisions.

Should we recommend this ISO/ANSI provision as an advisory provision in
508 or can somebody think of something else we could recommend as a
required provision to address Dr. Lewis' recommendation?

Andi

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Feb 25 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations -configurableuserinterfaces

We don't have 'shoulds' in 508 or 255 at this time

Do we mean SHALL? Does this change our thoughts?


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 11:23 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations -
> configurableuserinterfaces
>
> I like this because it is already in practice todday.
>
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Smith, Jamie wrote:
>
> I'm glad you started the wording. I made a couple changes. 1. Added
> "for complex applications" and removed "with a cognitive disability" as
> this simplification would benefit speech users as well as typical users.
> Here it is.
>
> For complex applications, software should provide a mechanism enabling
> users to simplify the interface look and feel such as hiding or
> displaying information or command buttons.
>
> Example 1: A user would be able to hide or show a tree structure or
> detail data information.
> Example 2: A user may select from a list of topics (grouped) and link
> to more detailed information.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:19 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive recommendations - configurable
> userinterfaces
>
>
> Also on the cognitive topic, we need to develop a proposal around this
> recommendation from Dr. Lewis:
>
> - provision for suppressing unneeded functions
>
> There are several challenges in coming up with something to address
> this.
> One challenge is testability and the other is the feeling that this
> doesn't need to be applied in all cases. Some software user interfaces
> and websites are very simple and probably don't need to do this. There
> are also issues of users forgetting that they have suppressed some
> functions and not being able to find them again when they do need them
> so a requirement to reset to the default configuration might be needed.
>
> The ISO and ANSI software accessibility standards address this by
> providing a recommendation, but it is not a requirement for conformance
> to the
> standard:
>
> Software should provide a mechanism enabling users to individualise the
> interface look and feel including the modification or hiding of command
> buttons.
> - EXAMPLE 1 A user with a cognitive disability may, when using a given
> application, change the interface via a "skin" to simplify the
> application's look and feel.
> - EXAMPLE 2 A word processor allows users to hide menu items and tool
> bar buttons that they do not find useful.
>
> 508 doesn't have the concept of optional requirements but other Access
> Board standards do. For example, the ADA building standards contain
> advisory provisions.
>
> Should we recommend this ISO/ANSI provision as an advisory provision in
> 508 or can somebody think of something else we could recommend as a
> required provision to address Dr. Lewis' recommendation?
>
> Andi
>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Mon, Feb 26 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Cognitive recommendations -configurable userinterfaces

Jamie,

How would you define a "complex application" in order to make this a
testable requirement? That is, we have to define it precisely enough so
that developers and agencies know when it applies.

Andi




"Smith, Jamie"
<Jamie.Smith@dbs.
fldoe.org> To
Sent by: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc

Subject
02/23/2007 03:15 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Cognitive
PM recommendations - configurable
userinterfaces

Please respond
to
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>






I'm glad you started the wording. I made a couple changes. 1. Added
complex applications" and removed "with a cognitive disability" as
simplification would benefit speech users as well as typical users.
is.

For complex applications, software should provide a mechanism enabling
to simplify the interface look and feel such as hiding or
information or command buttons.
show a tree structure or
Example 2: A user may select from a list of topics (grouped) and link
more detailed information.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Andi
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
recommendations - configurable
need to develop a proposal around this
provision for suppressing unneeded functions
coming up with something to address
the other is the feeling that this
Some software user interfaces
don't need to do this. There
have suppressed some
they do need them
might be needed.
this by
conformance
users to individualise the
modification or hiding of command
cognitive disability may, when using a given
interface via a "skin" to simplify the
2 A word processor allows users to hide menu items and tool
they do not find useful.

508 doesn't have the concept of optional requirements but other Access
standards do. For example, the ADA building standards contain
provisions.
provision in
as a

Andi
mailing list
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware.




Please take a few minutes to provide feedback on the quality of service you
received. The Department of Education values your feedback as a customer.
Commissioner John L. Winn is committed to continuously assessing and
improving the level and quality of services provided to you by Department
staff. Simply use the link below. Thank you in advance for completing the
survey.


http://data.fldoe.org/cs/default.cfm?staff= = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = |
16:15:42%20Fri%2023%20Feb%202007