Re: Comments on UAAG

I broadly agree with the below, my comments marked NM

Kind regards,

Neil 
This was sent from my iPad

On 2 Feb 2014, at 12:49, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Here is my initial review of UAAG 2.0 "Principle 3". See 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/
> 
> I have done my review by each guideline.
> 
> Guideline 3.1 - Help users avoid unnecessary messages
> Recognized messages that are non-essential or low priority
> 
> I think this is excellent but can be open to misinterpretation. Authors will add content that is important to them (the author) but not important to the user, 
> Examples include: Additional offers; how to upgrade to a more expensive option; downloading a toolbar etc. 
> It should also be broader such as:
> 
> Help users avoid and identify content that is not necessary to the task they are trying to perform.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.1.1 Reduce Interruptions:
> 
> The user can easily avoid or defer: 
> Messages and content that are non-essential or low priority for the user
> Messages, features and content that are not part of the core use-cases for the content.
> Information in the user agent user interface that is being updated or changing
> Rendered content that is being updated or changing
> 
> Also I think it needs to be easy to do this - not just possible. So maybe add
> To ensure that it is easy to avoid or defer this content it should:
> Be not more then two steps, Such as: One step to select avoid or defer them and a conformation step.
> Only simple and clear text and symbols should be used in controls to avoid or defer this content
> Controls to avoid this type of content should be positioned above or next to the content that it refers to.
> 
> 
> Guideline 3.2 - Help users avoid and correct mistakes 
> 
> Suggestion :
> Filling in information is much slower and harder for people with cognitive disabilities. Therefore:
>  Information should be easily retrievable such as via automatically saving the work so far. 

> NM: if possible people should be able to go back a step without losing what they have submitted. People with cognitive difficulties often have very low confidence in the accuracy of what they are submitting and therefore the ability to review and amend easily is important.

> Also Authors and agents should never add content or features that the user select them by mistake. Such as expensive options being placed before the cheaper option that the user thinks they are selecting.  (Obvious but worth spelling out anyway...). Maybe include:
> 
> Label any alternatives clearly 
> Make it easy to select the original offering:
> The original offering should be positioned above or next to the alternative
> The original offering should be sized the same or bigger then the the alternative
> NM: the original item / choice should be selected by default not switched to the item they want to up-sell - an example of this would be AVG antivirus that switches the user to premium edition and leaves it to the user to switch back.

> Guideline 3.3 - Document the user agent user interface including accessibility features
> 
>  I think it should always be easy to ask / get help. Therefore:
> 
> Help icon should be available to every screen that takes the user directly to relevant "how to use these features" or instructions
> Symbol for help should be used (such as a question mark) or the world "help"
> Getting help should not be hidden. For example it should not be under a menu of options. Any steps needed to get to help should have the word help or the question mark symbol clearly in it (such as "options and help").
> Help text for core usability tasks should be easy to understand. 
> Help should be available in simple and clear text.
> Each step should be identified and labeled.
> Pictures that clarify what to do are recommended .
> Tool tip help is wonderful for explaining what user features are.  Maybe add:
> 
> Include tool tips on all icons, jargon and abbreviations.
> 
> 
> Finally We are just starting the task force and do not have consolidated advice yet. Therefor, if possible, recommend that additional proposals by the cognitive task force be incorporated.
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
> LinkedIn, Twitter
> 
> 
>