W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: alternative content for cognitive disabilities

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:19:55 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010421081955.007d8100@pop.erols.com>
To: "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Paul,

    The redundencies that some users complain of are there to aide other
users. Sometimes they aide the brother of the one doing the complaining.
Having a summary of the page or site would aide those who are complaining
about too much content. They can read just the summary, and move on, unless
they are looking for the details in the full text. Jonathon has already
stated that the "too much content" is a complaint of those who have
cognitive difficulties as well. 

	Matt, if the solution is to find ways to create pages that can be used by
the full range of disabled person, there will be redundencies until or
unless browsers make it easier to pick the content that you wish to access
on a site. This means that some folks are going to have to compromise and
share, so that everyone can fit at the table. 

					Anne

At 05:24 PM 4/20/01 -0600, Paul Bohman wrote:
>In response to your statement:
>
><quote>The problem with putting it in metadata is that it needs to be part
>of the
>basic presentation of the page content. The basic visual presentation and
>the basic speech reader presentation. <end quote>
>
>When you're talking about the needs of those with cognitive impairments,
>you're absolutely right, unless there is a setting in the browser which has
>an option to "turn on page summaries" or something similar, which would make
>it an option to show such summaries at all.
>
>With regard to the "needs" or _perceived_ needs of web developers and
>organizations, however, there may be points of conflict, with regard to
>visual appeal of a web site or the need for brevity, or some other real or
>perceived need. In fact, there may be discrepancies in other regards too.
>For example, users of screen readers often complain of too much content on a
>page, or too many links or too much redundancy that they have to listen to.
>When you add another type of redundancy, you may in fact confuse the user of
>screen reader software (or at least take up his time), and you might confuse
>a visual user as well, if the page summary is not handled well in the visual
>layout.
>
>In a sense, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing these points not
>because I want to squelch the idea of accommodations for those with
>cognitive impairments, but because I want to end up with a good set of
>guidelines that is as inclusive as possible for those with disabilities, but
>which is also equally inclusive of those without disabilities.
>
>Paul Bohman
>Technology Coordinator
>WebAIM: Web Accessibility in Mind (www.webaim.org)
>Center for Persons with Disabilities (www.cpd.usu.edu)
>Utah State University (www.usu.edu)
>
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Saturday, 21 April 2001 08:13:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:10 GMT