- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 14:43:52 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
While perhaps better, this also still leaves a few questions open...see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0676.html P On 22/05/2017 14:37, Gregg C Vanderheiden wrote: > Alastair makes a good point > > > Unless there is an automated tool — (a web crawler that can detect all > the navigation elements and test them) This would take forever. but I > think it’s doable if there’s some group that wants to put up the funds > to make it happen. > > If we do this, we will need to recognize that many sites will still have > navigation with complex words. If the most common word is complex word, > it would still pass. But I think this is okay. That means that sites > with unnecessarily complicated navigation words would use more common > words. And sites that are talking about complex topics would still be > able to use appropriate words. That is, a site selling laboratory > equipment could use proper technical terms to describe the categories of > equipment etc. > > It would be a perfect fit to Albert Einstein’s advice > > “ everything should be is made as simple as possible, and no simpler" > > > > > > /g/ > > Gregg C Vanderheiden > greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu> > > > > >> On May 22, 2017, at 9:06 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com >> <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote: >> >> Would we all be more comfortable if we just had >> >> "Provide words or phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common >> form to refer to the concept " >> >> >> Use of word frequency lists and core vocabularies could then be >> techniques. >> >> This is harder to test. The manual way to test it might be to look at >> a thesaurus and see if any of the words that mean the same thing and >> are more common. >> >> MS and IBM have tools that can test for the most common word. MS >> review tools are available with a subscription to their cloud. (i am >> not sure if this is true in all languages) but I can reach out to them >> and ask if we like this direct. >> >> >> >> All the best >> >> Lisa Seeman >> >> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter >> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> >> >> >> >> >> ---- On Wed, 17 May 2017 11:31:08 +0300 *Alastair >> Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>* wrote >> ---- >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > As mentioned, I’m still thinking through the implications and the >> feasibility here, but we do need to look beyond conventional >> approaches to defining and evaluating content requirements if we >> are to take some issues (especially but not only cognitive ones) >> into account in an authentic and effective way. >> >> >> Indeed, I have long maintained [1] that where improving >> accessibility crosses over into usability, you need to apply a >> certain process rather than guidelines. Most of the work my >> company does is apply user-centred-design, i.e. UX services for >> clients. >> >> >> Taking an example relevant to plain language (i.e. using 1500 >> common words), if you want to ensure a usable navigation menu for >> a content-oriented website then I would want to follow a >> particular process such as: >> >> -Open card sorting to establish how your audience think about the >> groupings of content and what grouping terms they associate with >> the content [2]. >> >> -Create a navigation that seems to work for that content & mental >> model based on the results. >> >> -Closed card sorting (often with larger numbers) to refine and >> prove it works [3]. You can put then percentages on how well each >> term & content grouping works, and refine until it is optimised >> enough. >> >> >> The two points I’d make are: >> >> 1.There is no guideline that can help you predict the outcome of >> what a ‘usable’ navigation will be, it is based on content, >> context and audience. Every time in the last 16 years we have run >> the above process we massively improve a navigation that was >> created without it. Provably. >> >> 2.Arbitrarily using words from a common list it likely to make it >> less usable for the majority of the audience and cost >> organisations money. >> >> >> Take the navigation of an ecommerce store for example: >> https://www.johnlewis.com/ <https://www.johnlewis.com/> I think >> there are more than 1500 words in the navigation! Also, it has (I >> assume) been finely honed over the years to maximise the usability >> for their customers. >> >> >> There is no reasonable argument to say that restricting their >> navigation to an arbitrary 1500 words is going to improve the >> experience for anyone. You could argue the interface should be >> simplified (e.g. like the small screen version) so less is >> presented at once, but many of the terms are objects or categories >> of things you can buy with specific names you can’t change. >> >> >> If they were asking my advice, I could not in good conscience tell >> them to restrict their navigation terms to the top 1500 words, it >> would cost them a lot of money for zero improvement for anyone. >> >> >> On the other hand, usability testing (with anyone but especially >> people with cognitive issues) or using the card-sorting process >> above would hugely improve most navigations for everyone, and with >> less political resistance (in an organisation) because they see >> the improvements first hand. >> >> >> For me this is something that needs to be dealt with in Silver, >> and a key part of Silver needs to be dealing with the **process** >> of making sites usable, as well as accessible. Ideally drawing on >> (or referring to) the ISO standards for user-centred-design and >> highlighting aspect particularly relevant for cognitive (and >> other) disabilities. >> >> >> In the meantime, can we move this one to the Cognitive TF note >> going out next to 2.1? >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> 1] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0037.html >> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0037.html> >> >> >> 2] >> https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/card-sorting.html >> <https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/card-sorting.html> >> >> >> 3] https://www.optimalworkshop.com/treejack >> >> >> >> > -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Monday, 22 May 2017 13:44:27 UTC