RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

I originally thought of leaving out 'loop' as well but was swayed by the engineering bit and the fact that if I make an error I want to go on having it coming back with something that makes sense!

I was also worried about 'timely' but as it took an overnight upload to get one video onto YouTube using our non-existent broadband connection, I felt 'immediate' was not a word I could aspire to!  YouTube did give me feedback when it finally uploaded but it took time!

Accessibility comes in many forms (she says with a wry smile)

Best wishes

Mrs E.A. Draffan
WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103<>
UK AAATE rep<>

From: John Kirkwood []
Sent: 11 August 2016 20:31
To: Michael Pluke <>; lisa.seeman <>
Cc: Mary Jo Mueller <>; Rochford, John <>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <>
Subject: Re: Joshue O Connor suggestion

My suggestion would be ‘immediate feedback'

I think ‘timely' has the potential of being interpreted as an email being sent to user? I am not in favor of that term. I would prefer immediate.
Also I fully agree with Mary Jo suggestion that should avoid the ‘loop’ term, Where it can be construed as potentially negative UX [user-experience] term when a user is ‘caught in a loop’ which is common an inaccessble website where someone with a screen reader gets caught in a process that they cannot escape. argh. ;(

Immediate understandable user Interaction feedback so the user knows what is happened and if it is still happening. And thus giving ‘success’ feedback if there is a notification of a process in motion.

I have many times been caught in process due to cog overload, visual overload, scanning issues that create problems with form entry and submission.

On Aug 11, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Michael Pluke <<>> wrote:

When I OK-ed the original suggestion, I envisaged a mental loop from intention, to action, to feedback, that leads to closure (of the loop). This all made sense and is a very positive thing that avoids the many unfinished mental processes that result from a lack of feedback.

However, I can quite appreciate that the wording could conjure up the generally negative image of an feedback loop.

In all guidelines that I’ve ever written I have only ever used the term “feedback” and not “feedback loop” – so I’m more than happy with Mary Jo’s excellent suggestion.

Mary Jo is right to point out that frequently the feedback is the very clear end result of the action e.g. the opening of a webpage, the closing of a window, the pausing of an audio track. But even in these cases, some feedback on the action itself may be required – separate from the outcome of the action.

I have often been frustrated when I have clicked on a link and nothing has happened. If there is no feedback on the action itself (i.e. if the link doesn’t change colour) I am unsure what has happened if the webpage doesn’t open. Was the problem that my click wasn’t registered or was it that there is, for example, insufficient memory available to open the browser? I have often clicked on a link more than once because nothing happened – only to be rewarded with multiple tabs containing the same page (because my browser had entered snail mode).

I agree with Lisa that the choice of feedback modalities can be handled as a personalization issue.

Best regards


From: lisa.seeman []
Sent: 11 August 2016 10:25
To: Mary Jo Mueller <<>>
Cc: Rochford, John <<>>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <<>>
Subject: RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

I also found the term feedback loop confusing. It means something else in Engineering.

I like this proposal. we can handle the spoken option by support of personlization
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<>, Twitter<>

---- On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:06:39 +0300 Mary Jo Mueller<<>> wrote ----
I'm probably joining this conversation a bit late, but do have some thoughts on this topic and I understand the verbiage is often very difficult to nail down on these requirements. Don't take my comments as criticisms, as I'm playing devil's advocate for a bit. Dealt too much lately with folks that over-interpret things and try to require way too much to the point it gets over-burdensome and prescriptive to anyone trying to develop any kind of application. Now for my comments...

I am an engineer too, and though I understand what a feedback loop is, I don't think the term is widely understood and to me it doesn't quite fit as it isn't really a continuous loop that the user is looking for. They want to take an action, learn of an issue and correct it - one time, not loop back again and again which is more of what a feedback loop is about. So could the term "feedback" be used instead?

Since this is an accessibility requirement being drafted, adding "accessible" seems a bit redundant.

The suggestion that there be multiple ways of presenting that feedback is an important one, and maybe it can be simply stated as such using "multiple ways" or "multiple modalities", but not sure it really makes sense to have multiple ways/modalities for every single possible action in a UI.

The multiple ways could be in some advisory techniques, unless we really want to require multiple ways.

And yet another question...should literally "every action" have feedback, and what kind of feedback? Clicking on a link is an action, the feedback is new content is loaded and viewable. Would you really need another modality of feedback for that? I'm just trying to think of possible scenarios where users of this guidance could misinterpret the requirement and take it much too far. How do you know you've really done it right and have a basis for saying you comply when someone else interprets it to mean you need multiple modalities of feedback on every single thing a user does in the UI?

So my suggested update would be:
3.5.1 The success or failure of actions should be clearly indicated to the user with timely and understandable feedback.

Best regards,
Mary Jo


Mary Jo Mueller
Accessibility Standards Program Manager
IBM Accessibility, IBM Research, Austin, TX
Phone: 512-286-9698 | Tie-line: 363-9698
Search for accessibility answers<> <image002.jpg>












"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."
~John Quincy Adams

<image006.gif>"Rochford, John" ---08/09/2016 06:40:03 AM---Hi Lisa and All, I agree with E.A.'s suggestion and with Mike's elaboration of it.

From: "Rochford, John" <<>>
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <<>>
Date: 08/09/2016 06:40 AM
Subject: RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

Hi Lisa and All,

I agree with E.A.’s suggestion and with Mike’s elaboration of it.


John Rochford<>
UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Instructor, Family Medicine & Community Health<x-msg://61/>
Twitter: @ClearHelper<>

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original message.

From: Michael Pluke []
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 5:42 AM
To: EA Draffan <<>>; lisa.seeman <<>>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <<>>
Subject: RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

I fully agree.

I think that, as an engineer, the “accessible feedback loop” gives a clear strong message about what is needed – and might be referred to from other success criteria.

Existing WCAG Success Criteria and anything else that we feel needs adding can cover how the feedback in that loop can be presented – a default modality, an alternate modality, user-configurable multimodal feedback (e.g. visual and spoken, visual and haptic, no feedback, etc.).

The definition of “accessible feedback loop” will need to give an indication of the timeliness of the feedback.

Best regards


From: EA Draffan [mailto:<><>]
Sent: 09 August 2016 09:56
To: lisa.seeman <<>>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <<>>
Subject: RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

I like it - if we add timely and useful do we have to quantify what we mean by 'timely' and 'useful'? Too much of a delay and they do not wait for the feedback and too complex - it does not help. It has to be clear but also useful so the user understands the feedback and can act on it.

3.5.1 The success or failure of every action should be clearly indicated to the user with a timely and useful accessible feedback loop.

Best wishes

Mrs E.A. Draffan
WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103<>
UK AAATE rep<>

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:<><>]
Sent: 08 August 2016 15:26
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <<>>
Subject: Joshue O Connor suggestion

Joshue O Connor suggested the following change.

3.5.1 The success or failure of every action should be clearly indicated to the user and visual rapid feedback should be available. Spoken feedback should be a user selectable option.
Would be better as.
3.5.1 The success or failure of every action should be clearly indicated to the user in an accessible feedback loop.
The term 'accessible feedback loop' could be defined in the notes or understanding section?
This would cover multi modal access etc for all disability types.
I am not sure it is simpler -what does everyone else think

All the best



  John Kirkwood
  President / CEO
  CityMouse, Inc.
  USBLN®  DOBE®<><>
Please consider the  environment before printing this email. The information found
in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If you
are not original intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination
retransmission, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information
is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.  Thank you.

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2016 21:32:40 UTC