Re: New draft of the review of UAAG 2.0

looks very good :-)

Liddy


On 04/02/2014, at 5:42 PM, lisa.seeman wrote:

>
> Here is the new draft for the  review of UAAG 2.0 "Principle 3". See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/ If we do not have any objections we  
> will submit this as our recommendations in 24 hours.
>
> We have done the review by each guideline.
>
> Guideline 3.1 - Help users avoid unnecessary messages
> Recognized messages that are non-essential or low priority
>
> We 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 we 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.
>
> Also the group is working to identify semantics that would make it  
> possible to handle this as an adaptive interface at the user end. If  
> this becomes possible that it would be an acceptable alternative to  
> make sure the Messages and content that are non-essential or low  
> priority for the user and Messages, features and content that are  
> not part of the core use-cases for the content can be  
> programmatically identified.
>
> 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.
> The user 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 try to confuse the user. For  
> example,  the users original selection / choice / offering should be  
> selected by default not switched to the item they want to up-sell ,  
> such as expensive options being placed before the cheaper option  
> that the user thinks they are selecting.  (Obvious but worth  
> spelling out anyway...). An example of this would be AVG antivirus  
> that switches the user to premium edition and leaves it to the user  
> to switch back.
>
> We  would like to  include:
> 	• The original offering/selection should be selected by default and  
> should not be switched automatically to an alternative
>
> If this is not acceptable  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
> In the future we may have the  semantics that would make it possible  
> to handle this as an adaptive interface at the user end. If this  
> becomes possible that it would be an acceptable alternative to make  
> sure the original selection can be programmatically identified.
>
> Guideline 3.3 - Document the user agent user interface including  
> accessibility features
>
> Firstly ,  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 user tasks and main or essential features 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 .
> We also would want to see a layered approach to help.  Tool tip help  
> is a wonderful memory aid for clarifying what user features are and  
> particularly useful for people with an impaired working memory. We  
> would add:
>
> Include short tool tips on all icons, jargon and shortened forms  
> such as abbreviations. Typically these toll tips should be one or  
> two words long. Tool tips in HTML can be provided via the title tag.
>
> Finally We are just starting the task force and do not have  
> consolidated advice yet. We are anticipating identifying semantics  
> for the user to be able  to use their preferred symbol set across  
> multiple applications.  Therefor, if possible, recommend that
>
> 	• When possible make, sure the meaning and role of all interface  
> components can be programmatically identified
> 	• Additional proposals by the cognitive accessibility  task force  
> be incorporated.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> Athena ICT Accessibility Projects
> LinkedIn, Twitter
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 20:24:30 UTC