RE: Distractions issue paper 1st draft

Hi Tony,



Here is my feedback.

·     IMO, even one disruption could cause a user to abandon a task. What do you think of changing the following?

o  “Continual disruption of the user experience by distraction may cause users to abandon a task.”

o  to “Continual or even one-time disruption of the user experience by distraction may cause users to abandon a task.”

·     From an easy-to-read perspective, what do you think of eliminating your repetitive text? For example, you could say, “People with impaired executive function may have:” and then present a bulleted list below it without repeating that text. Example:

o  “challenges completing time limited tasks, and as such may have that difficulty exacerbated by distractions, especially those that are difficult to close”

·     I have always assumed the word “adverts” is an abbreviation for “advertisements”. Unfortunately, that usage is uncommon in the U.S.. I thus suggest you replace “adverts” with “advertisements” to aid comprehension.

·     I find the following sentence confusing. “It may be difficult for those with impaired reasoning function to correctly interpret the purpose of the distraction, to differentiate between adverts, pop-up help windows or actual content.” Do you mean it is important for people to:

o  correctly interpret the purpose of a distraction, or

o  differentiate between distractions, or

o  differentiate between distractions and “actual content” or

o  all three?

·     Because all content is “actual”, how about using the phrase “primary content” or “main content” to discriminate such content from distractions?

·     IMO, there are no “necessary distractions”. The examples you provided, “login or user message”, should be integrated within the primary content so they do not distract from it. Nothing should distract from primary content.



I apologize that I took this long to provide feedback.

John

John Rochford<http://profiles.umassmed.edu/profiles/display/132901>
UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Instructor, Family Medicine & Community Health
www.DisabilityInfo.org
Twitter: @ClearHelper<https://twitter.com/clearhelper>
[Facebook Button]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-England-INDEXShriver-CenterUMass-Medical-School/227064920160>[Twitter Button]<https://twitter.com/NEINDEX> [WordPress Logo] <http://www.disabilityinfo.org/blog/>





-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Doran [mailto:t.doran@texthelp.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:05 AM
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: Distractions issue paper 1st draft



Hi All,



I wanted to get feedback on this. I think we need to be as generic as possible here, and look at distractions thematically as opposed to taking each type in detail. I had a long list of distractions and merged quite a few. I think the more generic we are the better. I am wary of interpretations where someone could say "oh but we're not a pop over, we're a pop under and we don't autoplay we wait 15 seconds!".



I have also not addressed the idea of a necessary distraction, such as a login or user message. We did discuss this a little but I'd like feedback from the group. We cannot be abstinence only IMO. There are situations where you will need to be distracted for a valid reason, we must give good practise here as well as pointing out bad practise.



Perhaps we need to get some comments and discuss on the call?





Thanks, Tony





--

Texthelp Ltd is a limited company registered in Belfast, N. Ireland with registration number NI31186 having its registered office and principal place of business at Lucas Exchange, 1 Orchard Way, Antrim, N. Ireland, BT41 2RU.