W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

Fw: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive disabilities

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:11:02 -0800
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <009501c1ba74$a1738640$6b91003e@dev1>
I think this may be worth weighting for before working more on checkpoint 3.3

all the best, 
Lisa 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Susanne Bruyere 
To: Lisa Seeman 
Cc: es48@cornell.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive disabilities


Lisa,

We have not forgotten you.  I sent your guidelines off to our own staff, and also to four colleagues with expertise in cognitive disabilities (traumatic brain injury) and developmental disabilities.   We have been waiting to see if anyone else responded to us.  Elaina Sitaras, our Research Assistant, is coalescing these responses for us, and will be sending these off to out tomorrow, from whatever feedback we have gotten.  She will also be sending the names and contact information for anyone who has responded, in case you want to get back to them with questions.  We hope that this will be of assistance.

Susanne Bruyere


At 06:24 PM 2/13/2002 -0800, you wrote:

  That is fantastic,
  Thanks
  Lisa

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Susanne Bruyere 
    To: Lisa Seeman 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:27 AM
    Subject: Developing accessibility techniques for cognitive disabilities

    Lisa,

    I am sharing this with several colleagues both within Cornell and the greater "cognitive disability" community, if that's okay.  I will try to coalesce responses and get back to you by Friday, if that's okay.

    Susanne

    At 09:04 AM 2/13/2002 -0800, you wrote:

       
      I have written a draft of the new checkpoint. It needs a lot of work technically (wording and differentiation between definitions and success criteria) but I thought I would ask your opinion before I work on it further as to if you consider it to be as complete as possible.
       
      Please not that the other checkpoints such as clear and consistent navigation mechanisms , and use consistent page layout and recognizable graphics and avoid moving, blinking, scrolling or auto-updating objects or pages, or ensure that they can be paused or stopped by the user are still in place.
       
      Thanks...
       
       



      Checkpoint 3.3 Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the content. 




       



      Definitions (informative) 




      Clear and simple writing requires planning and work on the level of the document each sentence and individual words. Clear and simple text has been broken up beyond the level requirements by good  markup. 
       
      A clear document has a structured flow of ideas.
       A clear document provides the flow of ideas summarized in a summary, diagram or page map  to help the user orientate themselves within the document.
      A clear document specifically states each step within the flow of ideas and does not leave stages inferred or implied.
      A clear document has an easily scanable layout with key information highlighted through presentation and positioning.
       A clear document contains tools to aid comprehension including: 
        a.. Illustrations:illustrations of instructions, illustrations of flow of concepts,  
        b.. Support of decision making:  Provide forms element examples. Provide calculation assistance. Provide prompts for procedures, cues. Support "wizards" which offer help, simplify configuration, and assist with sequences. Structured tasks, cued sequences, and step-by-step instructions. 
        c.. Reduction of decision making: Automated complex sequences like user registration. Reduce the need to calculate Providing forms element defaults  and make it easy to re-establish them. 
       
      Note: Loretta suggests moving this whole "provide additional support " part to an extra checkpoint. I think that that may be wise.

      A clear paragraph expresses a single idea that can be summarized by its first sentence.
      A clear paragraph has an easily scanable layout with key information highlighted through presentation, markup and positioning.
      A clear sentence contains a single point.
      A clear sentence is as short as can be used to expressed a single point.
       A clear instructions focuses on concrete rather than abstract indicators using absolute reference controls rather than relative ones.
       
      Simple word are words that easily understood. This means that words should be of short and of common usage.
      Use of jargon may be simple, were as the long term may complicate the sentence (eg: ROM or read only memory) however translations of jargon should be provided with each instance. 
      Clear words can not be misinterpreted by someone who is unfamiliar with the language or can not process metaphorical sarcastic or non literal use of language. Such unclear use of language should be marked as such.
      Clear words are meaningful and specific. 
       
      It is sufficient to provide a  mode with minimum and clear functionality that eliminates or hides what isn't necessary for completing the site's goals.

       



      Success criteria 




      Document:
      Provide overview
      For flow: look at overview ( summary, diagram, heading outline or page map)- It is possible to map the document to pieces that are in the summary 
      Highlight key information  using markup ( eg headings and emphasis) -  when the highlighted text
      stands alone does it summarize the key ideas.
       
      Paragraphs:
      Short paragraphs - Paragraphs should have with fewer than five sentences . Use lists to break up long paragraphs.
      can sentences be replaces by bullet points? If so markup sentence as a list 
      First sentence summarizes the point of each subsequent sentence - does each sentence in the paragraph directly relate to the first sentence?
      one idea per sentence- Test: replace each paragraph with a one idea sentence. Does the document
      STILL make sense?
       
      Sentence: 
          -All:
       Use short sentences - Write sentences with 20 or fewer words and .
       Use lists to break up long sentences -can comas be replaced by bullet points? if so markup sentence as a list 
      Sentence   -Headings
      Should be meaningful out of context
      Headings should be unique
          
      Sentence - Instructional
      It should be possible to identify a graphic representation of an
       instruction. I.e. you can draw the picture.
      Each step is clearly stated. You could you represent the flow  chart and successfully perform a dry
      run.
      Pictorial representation should be provided of each instruction
      Use active rather than passive expressions 
      Sentences contain no more than one relative clause
      Use goal/action structure for menu prompts.
       
      Words:
      Non-literal text is identified and a literal translation is identified - 
      test by literal translating to another language and re- literal translating back. Does it make
      sense?
      Jargon that is expected should be linked to a glossary / explanation.
      Use simple words: Substitute common words for uncommon words
      (without significantly expanding the size) does not change the meaning. Note 
      that this requires a dictionary that marks the "difficulty" of a word.

      Words - anchors (links)
      hypertext anchors should be meaningful out of context
       
      Forms
      All form elements should have a default or example provided
      calculations should be performed automatically (eg severside)
      Provide definite feedback cues
      Use a two-step "select and confirm" to reduce accidental selections. (IE nothing happens when an option is selected until a confirm/go/OK button is clicked)
       
       
       



      Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC, Director 
      Program on Employment and Disability 
      Cornell University 
      School of Industrial & Labor Relations-Extension Division 
      Ithaca, New York  14853-3901 USA 
      Telephone: (607)255-7727 
      Fax: (607)255-2763 
      TTY/TDD: (607)255-2891 
      e-mail: smb23@cornell.edu 
      Website address: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/
      Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC, Director 
      Program on Employment and Disability 
      Cornell University 
      School of Industrial & Labor Relations-Extension Division 
      Ithaca, New York  14853-3901 USA 
      Telephone: (607)255-7727 
      Fax: (607)255-2763 
      TTY/TDD: (607)255-2891 
      e-mail: smb23@cornell.edu 
      Website address: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 10:18:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT