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

RE: Cognition Simulation

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:07:10 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

         Thanks for your prompt response.

         When I wrote the note to this list to check out the simulation, I 
also sent a note to a friend who is the expert needed to turn this idea 
into the real thing .... He will certainly make improvements in my choice 
of question .... and may or may not change it to a free input .... yes the 
multiple choice is misleading ... this is the first draft of the idea ... 
not a polished product.

         There is no guarantee that a given individual will be able to 
understand a particular passage or text, a picture, a sound file, or a 
multi-media .... but if the presentation mode is inadequate the individual 
cannot choose the modality that is best for them ... I have a student who 
comes in the lab with the severely disabled class, who at age five had less 
than a year's worth of cognition on board .... He is still learning to 
focus on the screen, and occasionally experiences changes on the 
screen/sound initiated by his touching anything on the keyboard or mouse 
... He will not be able to gain anything from the web for awhile yet .... 
but his classmates with more cognition on board are learning to use the 
Internet as well as specially designed games.

         One thing that is on my version of this eventual simulation is 
that I greeked out every word that was not on the word list ---- ruthlessly 
..... in the case of a real person with a cognitive, reading or learning 
disability is that the individual will have a reading vocabulary beyond 
that of the word list, which may or may not include vocabulary on the 
target page ... but I'm not sure how to duplicate that without making the 
simulation less than "authentic" ... (which is where the expert comes in .... )


At 02:56 PM 8/24/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>This is an interesting exercise. One problem: by using a multiple choice
>test, you lead the user to the answer. A better test would be to simply ask
>"what is the above guideline telling you to do?" Leave the answer blank. At
>the bottom, you can provide the actual text of the guideline so people can
>check their answers.
>Without previous knowledge or answer prompts, I might have answered thus:
>What does Guideline 3.4 ask you to do?
>Go to the left if you're a man and to the right if you're a woman.
>or maybe
>Go to the left if you have square shoulders and to the right if you have bad
>The point is, illustrations can confuse the issue as easily as they can
>clarify it. Adding the audio equivalent is a much better idea. I would guess
>that all hearing, English-speaking readers would get the question right
>after hearing the audio equivalent (assuming they could make out Charles'
>funny accent).
>Having a checkpoint about adding illustrations makes little sense to me
>unless there is also a checkpoint saying that we should make illustrations
>(and other "text equivalent content") clear and simple. Why is it only text
>that needs to be clear and simple?
>One benefit of illustrations is that they can be of help to people who don't
>speak the language. But this is not as simple as it sounds! I think that
>telling people to add illustrations, etc. to their sites willy-nilly without
>serious instruction on HOW to do it will probably result in LESS accessible
>pages (especially given bandwidth restrictions -- there is nothing less
>accessible than a page you never see because you couldn't wait for it to
>Like Kynn's informal bias experiment, this test is dangerous because it may
>lead us to believe that we understand something that we really have no clue
>about. These sorts of tests/examples should really be formulated by
>researchers who are a) trained to do this sort of work, b) following an
>accepted procedure, and c) testing, testing, testing.
>Chas. Munat
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Anne Pemberton
> > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:47 PM
> > To: Charles McCathieNevile; WAI GL
> > Subject: Cognition Simulation
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >          The first rough and unpolished version of a Cognition Simulation
> > is now available at:
> > http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Guidelines/Cognition.html
> >
> >          Of course, y'all will recognize Chaals' illustration in it ....
> > interesting .... it's isn't possible to right click on a *.png image and
> > download it. I had to link it to Chaals' site ...
> >
> >          Come to think of it, I should link the sound file to it
> > as further
> > illustration to help make the point.
> >
> >          Anyone else have suggestions, comments, etc? I'm most curious if
> > some of you think it does or doesn't do what it's intended to do
> > - simulate
> > what it's like to be faced with an incomprehensible page.
> >
> >                                          Anne
> >
> > Anne Pemberton
> > apembert@erols.com
> >
> > http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> > http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
> >
> >

Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 20:51:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC