Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional and up-to-date details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

Web and Software: Cognitive suppressing unneeded functions

Proposal for a provision on suppressing unneeded functions

Add the following as a recommended, not mandatory, requirement. This provision is based on the ISO/ANSI provision:

  • 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.

See Andi's poston February 23, 2007.

Summary of discussion on suppressing unneeded functions

  • Recommended changes; add "for complex applications" and remove "with a cognitive disability". See Jamie's poston February 23,2007.
  • Most strategies that start simple, AND make it easy to locate the more complex features work well, for people with cognitive (as well as other) disabilities to access technology effectively. It makes products more "useable" for the population as a whole.
  • Changing things without user control is not good for cognitive disability. Prohibiting smart simplification would be beyond what we should be doing. I wouldn't recommend it but I don't think we should prohibit it unless there was very good reason to believe that it was really harmful.
  • We could certainly make this a strong recommendation in either the preamble or perhaps Subpart A. Would the General subcommittee undertake such an idea?
  • User control of the interface shouldn't become a requirement for a number of reasons (below.) Should this exist as a strong recommendation?
    • subjective nature of user control
    • development costs
    • judging conformance or non-conformance
  • We currently don't have any provision for recommendations in 508 or 255, but there is in the ADAAG. It would be good to have advisory but we would need more time to do it very well.
  • 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.
  • Interfaces that adapt to be task specific, rather than ones that change arbitrarily. It is not confusing if controls disapppear if you never need or look for them. However I don't think we are debating whether this has ever been achieved - rather not preventing it being achieved by omission in the regulation.

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University