Thread Subject: Is a context-sensitive help standard needed?
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
From: Michele Budris
Date: Fri, Mar 16 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Is a context-sensitive help standard needed?
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Albany">A second thread was added to the draft submission
wiki page
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission">http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission</a>), in section 3
(Other Material) item B: </font><font face="Albany"><span
class="mw-headline">Issues this subcommittee is not addressing, but
which should be addressed.</span></font><font face="Albany">
It was not included in the official submitted draft #1 since we had not
discussed it. The comment was submitted by Jim Tobias. The text is:<br>
<br>
"</font>Context-sensitive help is another important feature. For
example,
pressing F1 in some computer applications launches a help window that
is already focused on what the user is trying to do."<br>
<font face="Albany"><br>
Many programs already implement this. Do we want to have a standard
that requires it?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Michele<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>
From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Is a context-sensitive help standard needed?
<html>
<body>
I'm quite torn on this one.<br><br>
On the one hand, it seems like "a good thing". But it could so
easily be misused. We've lived through online help that documented each
and every field, dialog and window for the sake of completeness, and have
seen the degradation of trust in Help functions as a result. <br><br>
I think the point here is similar to the discussion we had around
documenting keyboard access - and the need to avoid overspecifying the
design. <br><br>
Maybe we should think about it this way: the goals are to make
information about how to use the product:<br><br>
- include information on use with all modes<br>
- easy to find without extra navigation or distraction from the primary
task<br>
- available in accessible form(s)<br><br>
I can easily think about how to write design guidelines to meet these
goals, but I'm much harder pressed to think about writing requirements
that don't have unintended consequences, and that apply to all
products. <br><br>
Would we want to consider writing a introduction that says this? It might
help, if we have any detailed requirements to put them into a context of
the accessibility goals. <br><br>
The other reason I'm torn is that I'd rather see the interface itself be
more helpful (if not just plain usable), rather than requiring external
help.<br><br>
FYI, in the current draft of the VVSG - Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines, we expanded the requirements ("shall") to address
Cognitive Issues (note that this is in the general usability section).
Because we are writing for a very specific function, we were able to
include requirements such as Completeness of Instructions and
Availability of Assistance from the System. We also included a Plain
Language requirement, but the specifics are all guidelines
("should") because we could find at least one valid exception
to every rule. They included some writing guidelines and things like the
placement of instructions, and use of labels with icons/buttons.
<br><br>
(By the way, in preparation for a VVSG committee meeting this week, the
latest DRAFT version of the new VVSG is now posted at
<a href="http://vote.nist.gov/meeting20070322.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://vote.nist.gov/meeting20070322.htm</a>. The materials from the
Human Factors and Privacy committee are at the bottom of the page,
including an extraction of the draft chapter on usability and
accessibility being presented for discussion.)<br><br>
Whitney<br><br>
At 03:48 PM 3/16/2007, Michele Budris wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">A second thread was added to the
draft submission wiki page
(<a href="http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission">
http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission</a>), in section 3
(Other Material) item B: Issues this subcommittee is not addressing, but
which should be addressed. It was not included in the official submitted
draft #1 since we had not discussed it. The comment was submitted by Jim
Tobias. The text is:<br><br>
"Context-sensitive help is another important feature. For example,
pressing F1 in some computer applications launches a help window that is
already focused on what the user is trying to do."<br><br>
Many programs already implement this. Do we want to have a standard that
requires it?<br><br>
Thanks,<br>
Michele<br>
WebAIM is an initiative of:
