E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 14 (In chronological order)

From: Paul R. Bohman
Date: Thu, Nov 02 2006 4:20PM
Subject: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
No previous message | Next message →

Related to my previous posts, I've drafted a set of *design
principles* for cognitive disabilities. This list is different from
the list of functional cognitive disabilities in that the design
principles are more rule-like or guideline-like, and their intended
audience is web developers. I'm sure this list will also undergo
changes over time. You'll notice that I've addressed the issue of
motivation, which was brought up in a couple of the posts previously,
with the "engagement" principle (see below). I felt that a
principle-based list was an appropriate place to address that issue,
whereas a list of the disability types themselves was probably not.

As I read through my own list, I'm becoming more convinced of two
(somewhat contradictory) things:
1. There is a large overlap between the principles of general
usability and cognitive accessibility.
2. Designing for cognitive disabilities is a specialized area that
general usability experts or web accessibility experts probably are
not qualified to design for, and may never be.

The first point above is encouraging. The second point is
discouraging, in that it means that making content accessible to the
blind or deaf or to those with motor disabilities really is vastly
different than making content accessible to people with cognitive
disabilities. Content designed for people with cognitive disabilities
simply won't be the same or look the same as content designed for the
rest of the population -- especially when you take into account the
principle of developmental appropriateness. Still, for minor cognitive
disabilities, there is still enough overlap with general usability
principles to make the concept of universal design a worthy, if
unachievable, goal. We just have to put an asterisk after the word
"universal" and admit that we really mean "mostly universal".

Here's my list:


1. SIMPLICITY
Create a sparse, clean design; Eliminate distracters; Limit the number
of options or choices; Limit or eliminate complex ideas

2. CLARITY
Use direct, unambiguous language; Make the purpose of the content
obvious; Make the interface intuitive

3. BREVITY
Limited the amount of content; Limit the number of procedural steps
the user must go through; Break longer pieces of content into smaller
chunks

4. CONSISTENCY
Keep the interface, design, and interactive controls as predictable as possible

5. FAMILIARITY
Ground the design in the user's frame of reference, such as that
person's past experiences, knowledge set, etc.

6. ENGAGEMENT
Attract and focus the interest and attention of the user; Perhaps
introduce game-like elements

7. GUIDANCE
Include cues, help, and prompts that assist the user to understand the
content or perform the task at hand

8. AUTOMATION
Reduce or eliminate the need to initiate or manually perform any
procedures; Reduce or eliminate the need for reasoning or calculation
logic

9. AUDIOVISUAL REPRESENTATION
Keep text to a minimum; supplement or replace text with graphics,
illustrations, icons, audio, and/or video formats

10. DEVELOPMENTAL APPROPRIATENESS
Regardless of the age of the user, make references to ideas and items
that matches the user's developmental abilities and maturities, which
may mean incorporating child-like elements

11. DIGITAL TRANSFORMABILITY
Build in the ability to alter such things as font, background color,
etc (this may include the construction of custom widgets, but may also
include compatibility with user agents which already have such
capabilities); Allow for text to speech conversion (e.g. screen
readers)

--
Paul R. Bohman
Administrative Faculty, College of Education & Human Development
Lead Architect of Web Services, Office of Technology Support
Technology Coordinator, Kellar Institute for Human disAbilities
George Mason University

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Fri, Nov 03 2006 3:30AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Paul/Jared,

This is really very interesting work, so well done. You are helping to
provide understandable guidelines
for developers who really may not have the ability (through no fault of
their own) to serve users with cognitive disabilities.

> 2. I dropped "intellectual confidence", because I think I've decided
> that a lack of confidence is more of a psychological/emotional trait,
> not necessarily caused by a disability, though there may be a
> correlation.

I think that there is definitely a connection. I would even suggest that
a lack of "intellectual confidence" can be very much
disabling in itself. Where it lies within the spectrum of psychological
or autistic spectrum disorders is a grey area.
For example, a friendly warm user interface (in terms of how it would
appear to a user with an sensory disability) may be far
more approachable that a colder (in terms of colour layout and overall
feel) more corporate visual style.

Could approaches like this be used to enhance "intellectual confidence"
for the end user?.
Could intellectual confidence be therefore enhanced by attention to
greater overall usability within a web application?
Would the motivation of a user and their desire to use the application
be increase by an improvement in overall usability?

The answer to the first two questions, I would suggest, is maybe, but
the third is definitely yes and would enhance the experience for everybody.

Again I think there is a connection, and you have made an excellent
point when you said:

>> 1. There is a large overlap between the principles of general
>> usability and cognitive accessibility.

How you would measure the connection between an improvement in usability
and an enhanced user experience for a user
with an intellectual disability, is something I cannot answer, but
observational evidence gathered from user tests might
provide the answer.

Good work Paul.

Best Regards

Josh




Paul R. Bohman wrote:
> Related to my previous posts, I've drafted a set of *design
> principles* for cognitive disabilities. This list is different from
> the list of functional cognitive disabilities in that the design
> principles are more rule-like or guideline-like, and their intended
> audience is web developers. I'm sure this list will also undergo
> changes over time. You'll notice that I've addressed the issue of
> motivation, which was brought up in a couple of the posts previously,
> with the "engagement" principle (see below). I felt that a
> principle-based list was an appropriate place to address that issue,
> whereas a list of the disability types themselves was probably not.
>
> As I read through my own list, I'm becoming more convinced of two
> (somewhat contradictory) things:
> 1. There is a large overlap between the principles of general
> usability and cognitive accessibility.
> 2. Designing for cognitive disabilities is a specialized area that
> general usability experts or web accessibility experts probably are
> not qualified to design for, and may never be.
>
> The first point above is encouraging. The second point is
> discouraging, in that it means that making content accessible to the
> blind or deaf or to those with motor disabilities really is vastly
> different than making content accessible to people with cognitive
> disabilities. Content designed for people with cognitive disabilities
> simply won't be the same or look the same as content designed for the
> rest of the population -- especially when you take into account the
> principle of developmental appropriateness. Still, for minor cognitive
> disabilities, there is still enough overlap with general usability
> principles to make the concept of universal design a worthy, if
> unachievable, goal. We just have to put an asterisk after the word
> "universal" and admit that we really mean "mostly universal".
>
> Here's my list:
>
>
> 1. SIMPLICITY
> Create a sparse, clean design; Eliminate distracters; Limit the number
> of options or choices; Limit or eliminate complex ideas
>
> 2. CLARITY
> Use direct, unambiguous language; Make the purpose of the content
> obvious; Make the interface intuitive
>
> 3. BREVITY
> Limited the amount of content; Limit the number of procedural steps
> the user must go through; Break longer pieces of content into smaller
> chunks
>
> 4. CONSISTENCY
> Keep the interface, design, and interactive controls as predictable as possible
>
> 5. FAMILIARITY
> Ground the design in the user's frame of reference, such as that
> person's past experiences, knowledge set, etc.
>
> 6. ENGAGEMENT
> Attract and focus the interest and attention of the user; Perhaps
> introduce game-like elements
>
> 7. GUIDANCE
> Include cues, help, and prompts that assist the user to understand the
> content or perform the task at hand
>
> 8. AUTOMATION
> Reduce or eliminate the need to initiate or manually perform any
> procedures; Reduce or eliminate the need for reasoning or calculation
> logic
>
> 9. AUDIOVISUAL REPRESENTATION
> Keep text to a minimum; supplement or replace text with graphics,
> illustrations, icons, audio, and/or video formats
>
> 10. DEVELOPMENTAL APPROPRIATENESS
> Regardless of the age of the user, make references to ideas and items
> that matches the user's developmental abilities and maturities, which
> may mean incorporating child-like elements
>
> 11. DIGITAL TRANSFORMABILITY
> Build in the ability to alter such things as font, background color,
> etc (this may include the construction of custom widgets, but may also
> include compatibility with user agents which already have such
> capabilities); Allow for text to speech conversion (e.g. screen
> readers)
>


********************************************************************

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments
is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However,
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of NCBI


********************************************************************

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 9:00AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

Mr. Bohman,

I believe I'll have to disagree with you on your view of design
for cognitive disabilities. I think anyone can design and be qualified.
I've seen the progress with Section 508 issues and developers and see no
reason for it to differ when involving cognitive disabilities. I do
agree there is a lack of attempts to address the issues and obtain a
consensus, as evidenced by Section 508's lack of technical standards for
this area (although certainly not to blame, just a reality of the
difficulty in reaching consensus).

I think you might benefit from considering Universal Design when
building your list. Research into this area might also provide you with
a fresh perspective that you might find enjoyable. Besides the general
web search for Universal Design,
http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html might be of particular
interest to you. I've personally found Universal Principles of Design:
100 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal,
Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach Through Design, ISBN: 1592530079
to be wonderfully crafted and useful to consider when trying to build
models for discussions such as the one you offer in your email.

Please take these comments in the spirit for which they were
intended; focus on the positive and plan for how things fail, for the
betterment of others.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Program Manager, USPS

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Paul R.
Bohman
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 6:17 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities


Related to my previous posts, I've drafted a set of *design
principles* for cognitive disabilities. This list is different from
the list of functional cognitive disabilities in that the design
principles are more rule-like or guideline-like, and their intended
audience is web developers. I'm sure this list will also undergo
changes over time. You'll notice that I've addressed the issue of
motivation, which was brought up in a couple of the posts previously,
with the "engagement" principle (see below). I felt that a
principle-based list was an appropriate place to address that issue,
whereas a list of the disability types themselves was probably not.

As I read through my own list, I'm becoming more convinced of two
(somewhat contradictory) things:
1. There is a large overlap between the principles of general
usability and cognitive accessibility.
2. Designing for cognitive disabilities is a specialized area that
general usability experts or web accessibility experts probably are
not qualified to design for, and may never be.

The first point above is encouraging. The second point is
discouraging, in that it means that making content accessible to the
blind or deaf or to those with motor disabilities really is vastly
different than making content accessible to people with cognitive
disabilities. Content designed for people with cognitive disabilities
simply won't be the same or look the same as content designed for the
rest of the population -- especially when you take into account the
principle of developmental appropriateness. Still, for minor cognitive
disabilities, there is still enough overlap with general usability
principles to make the concept of universal design a worthy, if
unachievable, goal. We just have to put an asterisk after the word
"universal" and admit that we really mean "mostly universal".

Here's my list:


1. SIMPLICITY
Create a sparse, clean design; Eliminate distracters; Limit the number
of options or choices; Limit or eliminate complex ideas

2. CLARITY
Use direct, unambiguous language; Make the purpose of the content
obvious; Make the interface intuitive

3. BREVITY
Limited the amount of content; Limit the number of procedural steps
the user must go through; Break longer pieces of content into smaller
chunks

4. CONSISTENCY
Keep the interface, design, and interactive controls as predictable as
possible

5. FAMILIARITY
Ground the design in the user's frame of reference, such as that
person's past experiences, knowledge set, etc.

6. ENGAGEMENT
Attract and focus the interest and attention of the user; Perhaps
introduce game-like elements

7. GUIDANCE
Include cues, help, and prompts that assist the user to understand the
content or perform the task at hand

8. AUTOMATION
Reduce or eliminate the need to initiate or manually perform any
procedures; Reduce or eliminate the need for reasoning or calculation
logic

9. AUDIOVISUAL REPRESENTATION
Keep text to a minimum; supplement or replace text with graphics,
illustrations, icons, audio, and/or video formats

10. DEVELOPMENTAL APPROPRIATENESS
Regardless of the age of the user, make references to ideas and items
that matches the user's developmental abilities and maturities, which
may mean incorporating child-like elements

11. DIGITAL TRANSFORMABILITY
Build in the ability to alter such things as font, background color,
etc (this may include the construction of custom widgets, but may also
include compatibility with user agents which already have such
capabilities); Allow for text to speech conversion (e.g. screen
readers)

--
Paul R. Bohman
Administrative Faculty, College of Education & Human Development
Lead Architect of Web Services, Office of Technology Support
Technology Coordinator, Kellar Institute for Human disAbilities
George Mason University

From: Paul R. Bohman
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 10:00AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC wrote:

> I believe I'll have to disagree with you on your view of design for
> cognitive disabilities. I think anyone can design and be qualified.

Yes and no. I don't want to put myself in the position of discouraging
web developers to strive for cognitive disability access. I'm in favor
of cognitive disability access. At the same time, I've seen sites
designed specifically for people with cognitive disabilities. The ones
I'm thinking of at the moment are not public sites, unfortunately, so I
can only describe them. They have very sparse designs with very few
options. They have large, child-like icons, funny sounds (to make the
site game-like and engaging), and most people without cognitive
disabilities would find the text uninformative. In fact, the content of
the sites is not content that the "average" person would be interested
in in the first place. They're not designed to be universal. They're
designed just for people with cognitive disabilities.

I think those sites are fantastic for their target audience. I also
think they're almost completely useless to everyone else. So how do I
reconcile this? Would I recommend that all sites be designed like this?
No. Would I recommend that designers incorporate some of the basic
principles of these designs (simplicity, clean design, and so on [1]) in
their mainstream designs? Absolutely.

But that's the dilemma. I think it is very possible to have "mostly
universal" designs that accommodate the needs of most users, but I know
for a fact that truly universal designs are impossible. The more severe
the cognitive disability, the more drastically different the design has
to be. At some point along the scale, a person will be completely unable
to benefit from web content at all, and there is nothing a designer can
do about it.

Of course, when talking to web developers, I try to accentuate the
positive: Yes, you can make the site more usable to people with
cognitive disabilities. Yes, people with cognitive disabilities really
do want to use your site.

But among web accessibility professionals, I think we must be aware of
the limitations of our own advice.

I also think that most web accessibility professionals have never even
tried to make sites truly accessible to people with cognitive
disabilities. We don't have the collective experience. If you talk to
someone who specializes in special education, you'll soon realize that
resources for this target audience are designed with an entirely
different set of assumptions and principles in mind. They know much more
about cognitive disabilities than we do, because they deal with it
directly on a daily basis. In contrast, we (most of us) sit at our
computers typing markup and code, very much apart from this direct
experience with people with cognitive disabilities. We don't yet know
enough because we haven't yet really tried.

[1] See http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_message.php?id=9614 for my
full list of design principles

--

Paul R. Bohman
Administrative Faculty, College of Education & Human Development
Lead Architect of Web Services, Office of Technology Support
Technology Coordinator, Kellar Institute for Human disAbilities
George Mason University

From: Phil Teare
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 2:30PM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

Excellent Paul!

Very good.

From: Phil Teare
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 2:40PM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

>We don't have the collective experience.

Then I'll offer some.

I have a cognitive difference. I'm severly dyslexic. And for me that means I
cannot read or write quickly or accurately. Fluency is impossible for me
without a screen reader, and as such I skim and compensate in many ways.
Also hindered by short term memory deficits, I find dependancy on badly
labled bread crum navigation a problem (as I forget which stage I was at
when I did x).

These propblems culminated in the very real problem of me not being able to
fill my TAX return online. I was VERY happy to see it as an option as I
prefer reading from a screen. But the system would always timeout before I
could finish. This drove me crazy. And was a real problem for me as I make
more mistakes on paper, and they are harder to correct. If you make too many
the paper becomes a mess and they refuse to accept it. This is just one
example. I am one of more that 10% of the population similarly effected.
This is a much larger percentage than those with v.i.

So please don't ignore the issue because you don't know how to solve it. If
you're on the forum I'm guessing you do want to solve such issues. I'm
saying that there are design factors that you can consider practically which
will benift many in the real world, in real ways, without you needing to
take another degree course to get up to scratch.
e.g.
1) timeouts should be plenty long! not for you to finish it, but for someone
litteraly 7 times slower than you.
2) include icons. They don't have to be huge and childlike. But simple and
representive. Think XP iconic graphics.
3) Put youself in the position of someone with a short term memory problem,
a language proble, etc.... Just as you would a v.i. user.
4) Visit a forum dedicated to each major issue, listen to anechdotes of
those effected.
5) offer a variety of interfaces. People like choice, and some people will
need that 'other alternative'

An example of a tip for those with English (read: language of content in
question) as a second language, is offer graphical and audio content, and
lable the help options with the internation *i *for information.

You could fill books with this kind of thing... just as with v.i.
considerations. But you can also boil it down to X best tips for...

So please, don't give up before you start.

Best
Phil

From: Paul R. Bohman
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 6:50PM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

On 11/8/06, Phil Teare < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >We don't have the collective experience.
>
> Then I'll offer some.

I appreciate your insight. It's always helpful to hear from someone
who can speak directly from personal experience.

Your list of recommended techniques is a good one. I do have a
question about two of your recommendations:

> 5) offer a variety of interfaces. People like choice, and some people will
> need that 'other alternative'

This seems like a good idea on the surface. I do wonder, however, if
sometimes it is more confusing to have the choice of interfaces. The
choices themselves might cause confusion, or at least they will add to
the clutter of the design. But I'm open to the idea.

What sort of choices would you benefit from? Or what sort of
non-standard additions (or subtractions) from the design would you
like? Or would it be better for you to incorporate your
recommendations into the main design, without having to worry about
going to a separate version of the site?

> An example of a tip for those with English (read: language of content in
> question) as a second language, is offer graphical and audio content, and
> label the help options with the international "i" for information.

I wonder how many people actually click on "information" icons. I
don't know the answer to that question. I just wonder. What sort of
information would be best to offer? The BBC web site
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/) has a link to "Accessibility help" with quite
a bit of information. I don't know that it's necessary for every site
to offer that amount of information. But if they don't, what would
they offer instead? Or would they just link to other sites with that
kind of information, such as the BBC site?

> So please, don't give up before you start.

That's good advice. Even though web accessibility professionals are
committed to the idea of cognitive disability access, I think most of
us keep hoping that someone's going to tell us some definitive answers
on how to do it. Very few are out there trying to achieve it.

--
Paul R. Bohman
Administrative Faculty, College of Education & Human Development
Lead Architect of Web Services, Office of Technology Support
Technology Coordinator, Kellar Institute for Human disAbilities
George Mason University

From: Phil Teare
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 2:20AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

>
> > 5) offer a variety of interfaces. People like choice, and some people
> will
> > need that 'other alternative'
>
> This seems like a good idea on the surface. I do wonder, however, if
> sometimes it is more confusing to have the choice of interfaces. The
> choices themselves might cause confusion, or at least they will add to
> the clutter of the design. But I'm open to the idea.
>

True this isn't easy to do without it getting cluttered fast, but as
designers, this is where you earn you keep. Here I'm simply saying offer a
variety of the usual interfaces for navigation, for example. Browse (site
map), search, bread crumb, including concise descriptions of each link,
pluss graphic illustration (icons). Now that audio is available to most why
not offer it (interest declared, but please do try www.talklets.com , it
starts at free.)

This isn't an overwhelming number of features, as long as you stick by the
good advice you've already devised.

> An example of a tip for those with English (read: language of content in
> question) as a second language, is offer graphical and audio content, and
> label the help options with the international "i" for information.

I used this in my first TTS app, and I got a lot of good feedback from
people for that. All to often help files are hidden to users due to the
literacy barriers. The white i in a blue background is imediately
recognisable to most.

>
> Or would they just link to other sites with that
> kind of information, such as the BBC site?
>

Again I have an axe to grind, but my major issue with the BBC's
accessibility page is to most with accessibility issues, its too cluttered.
And if you're going to make any page speech enabled (vie something like
talklets, or your own flash app) Then thats the page you should do it to!

typed quickly, hope it makes sense,

Phil

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 9:30AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

Phil Teare wrote on 9 November 2006 04:18:
> [....]Now
> that audio is available to most why not offer it (interest declared,
> but please do try www.talklets.com , it starts at free.)

I just tried to check out Talklets on a few of my main browsers but it's not
running correctly with my current settings. I usually have all my browsers
set with ActiveX disabled, as well as a fairly high level of
security/privacy/cookies/control protection against scripts and plugins, so
I'm sure the problem is related to those settings. But I don't have time to
figure out what needs to be enabled on each browser.

Do you have a simple list of what security/cookie/JavaScript/ActiveX/plugin
settings need to be enabled/disabled for Talklets to work?

OS:
XP SP2

Browsers:

Opera 9.02
- no toolbar shows
- no warning or notice displayed

MSIE 6.0
- toolbar shows, text will highlight, but no sound
- top of window warning saying that ActiveX is not enabled and may prevent
page from displaying properly

Firefox 1.5.0.7
- toolbar shows, text will highlight, but no sound
- top of window message saying that additional plugins are required to
display all the media on this page, but clicking for more info says no
suitable plugin found

Phil.

From: Phil Teare
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 10:10AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi

The system is tailored to the majority...

It uses Javascript and audio plugins (in IE thats an ActiveX)

For all out of the box installs, it should work for XP, Vista, OS x on
IE5.5and 6, Safari, and Firefox. Opera is not yet supported.

Firefox does work on XP and OSx if you let it install the plugin.

So you've been very unlucky. Its the bain of of developers that there will
always be poeple in your position who use a sytem the is either
incompatible, or set not to use their tech.

I'd love more detail on you FF problem as it should (does) work with audio
pugins installed. Opera is on the "Future" devcycle list. Which means not
immediate, but should happen within the year.

If you prevent ActiveX in IE then it can't work, as you've switched off the
tech needed.

One solution coming soon is a Flash version. This will add 'out of the box'
compatibility with Ubuntu.

Like I say, get in touch re the ff problem. (phil.a.teare#AT#Googlemail.com)

Cheers
Phil



On 09/11/06, Philip Kiff < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Phil Teare wrote on 9 November 2006 04:18:
> > [....]Now
> > that audio is available to most why not offer it (interest declared,
> > but please do try www.talklets.com , it starts at free.)
>
> I just tried to check out Talklets on a few of my main browsers but it's
> not
> running correctly with my current settings. I usually have all my
> browsers
> set with ActiveX disabled, as well as a fairly high level of
> security/privacy/cookies/control protection against scripts and plugins,
> so
> I'm sure the problem is related to those settings. But I don't have time
> to
> figure out what needs to be enabled on each browser.
>
> Do you have a simple list of what
> security/cookie/JavaScript/ActiveX/plugin
> settings need to be enabled/disabled for Talklets to work?
>
> OS:
> XP SP2
>
> Browsers:
>
> Opera 9.02
> - no toolbar shows
> - no warning or notice displayed
>
> MSIE 6.0
> - toolbar shows, text will highlight, but no sound
> - top of window warning saying that ActiveX is not enabled and may prevent
> page from displaying properly
>
> Firefox 1.5.0.7
> - toolbar shows, text will highlight, but no sound
> - top of window message saying that additional plugins are required to
> display all the media on this page, but clicking for more info says no
> suitable plugin found
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Phil Teare
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 10:20AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

additional...

Coockies are also advised...

We're revamping the Talkltes site, include helpages etc... I'll make sure
more detail is added.

Cheers
Phil


On 09/11/06, Phil Teare < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> The system is tailored to the majority...
>
> It uses Javascript and audio plugins (in IE thats an ActiveX)
>
> For all out of the box installs, it should work for XP, Vista, OS x on
> IE5.5 and 6, Safari, and Firefox. Opera is not yet supported.
>
> Firefox does work on XP and OSx if you let it install the plugin.
>
> So you've been very unlucky. Its the bain of of developers that there will
> always be poeple in your position who use a sytem the is either
> incompatible, or set not to use their tech.
>
> I'd love more detail on you FF problem as it should (does) work with audio
> pugins installed. Opera is on the "Future" devcycle list. Which means not
> immediate, but should happen within the year.
>
> If you prevent ActiveX in IE then it can't work, as you've switched off
> the tech needed.
>
> One solution coming soon is a Flash version. This will add 'out of the
> box' compatibility with Ubuntu.
>
> Like I say, get in touch re the ff problem. (
> phil.a.teare#AT#Googlemail.com)
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
> On 09/11/06, Philip Kiff < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > Phil Teare wrote on 9 November 2006 04:18:
> > > [....]Now
> > > that audio is available to most why not offer it (interest declared,
> > > but please do try www.talklets.com , it starts at free.)
> >
> > I just tried to check out Talklets on a few of my main browsers but it's
> > not
> > running correctly with my current settings. I usually have all my
> > browsers
> > set with ActiveX disabled, as well as a fairly high level of
> > security/privacy/cookies/control protection against scripts and plugins,
> > so
> > I'm sure the problem is related to those settings. But I don't have
> > time to
> > figure out what needs to be enabled on each browser.
> >
> > Do you have a simple list of what
> > security/cookie/JavaScript/ActiveX/plugin
> > settings need to be enabled/disabled for Talklets to work?
> >
> > OS:
> > XP SP2
> >
> > Browsers:
> >
> > Opera 9.02
> > - no toolbar shows
> > - no warning or notice displayed
> >
> > MSIE 6.0
> > - toolbar shows, text will highlight, but no sound
> > - top of window warning saying that ActiveX is not enabled and may
> > prevent
> > page from displaying properly
> >
> > Firefox 1.5.0.7
> > - toolbar shows, text will highlight, but no sound
> > - top of window message saying that additional plugins are required to
> > display all the media on this page, but clicking for more info says no
> > suitable plugin found
> >
> > Phil.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 3:40AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

On 09/11/06, Phil Teare < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> For all out of the box installs, it should work for XP, Vista, OS x on
> IE5.5and 6, Safari, and Firefox. Opera is not yet supported.

Small point*: IE5 (a) was the highest version IE on the Mac, (b) is no
longer being developed and (c) was the same browser as the Windows
version *in name only*.

Regards,

Tim

* I don't wish to play the pedant card, but it's an important
distinction, I think.

From: Phil Teare
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 4:20AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | Next message →

I've missed a comma somewhere. I didn't mean to imply it worked on IE 6 on
the Mac. FF and Safari are supported on the Mac.

Apologies for not makeing that clearer.

Cheers
Phil


On 14/11/06, Tim Beadle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> On 09/11/06, Phil Teare < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > For all out of the box installs, it should work for XP, Vista, OS x on
> > IE5.5and 6, Safari, and Firefox. Opera is not yet supported.
>
> Small point*: IE5 (a) was the highest version IE on the Mac, (b) is no
> longer being developed and (c) was the same browser as the Windows
> version *in name only*.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> * I don't wish to play the pedant card, but it's an important
> distinction, I think.
>



--
Phil Teare,
Lead Developer,
<a href="http://www.talklets.com">www.talklets.com</a>

From: John Foliot
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 10:10AM
Subject: Re: Design Principles for Cognitive Disabilities
← Previous message | No next message

Tim Beadle wrote:

> * I don't wish to play the pedant card, but it's an important
> distinction, I think.

Webster's defines pedant as, amongst many things, "...a formalist or
precisionist in teaching". So while some may see being a pedant as all
negative, I don't. When it comes to web accessibility, often the devil is
in the details, so being a "formalist or precisionist" ain't necessarily a
bad thing - that is what is required in the world of Standards.

Just my $0.02 off topic cents.

JF