RE: proposal for changed term was Re: RE: Change to Identify Charges. Please responde within 48 hours

I think that we could try to go with this. A worry is that I’m not sure who would be responsible for identifying what are “non-essential services that many people value but most do not use”.

You’ve assumed that paying for an allocated seat falls into above category – I’m not so sure whether it does (see my explanation after my signature). Now that the option to pay for an allocated seat exists I have no idea how many people pay the relatively small charge for a seat. So if I was evaluating the Easyjet site, I wouldn’t know whether to pass or fail the site if they didn’t say how much it cost to get an allocated seat (2 or 3 levels of charge).

Best regards

Mike
The history of Easyjet charges:
In the early days of Easyjet I seemed to be in a very small minority in not being bothered that I couldn’t reserve a specific seat before flying. Most people had the then traditional mental model of how airlines were supposed to operate and were usually annoyed/distressed about the uncertainty of not knowing where they were going to sit before entering the plane. This made some people avoid the airline altogether. Because I adopted the public bus transport mental model, their way of operating perfectly fitted my expectations.

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: 20 November 2016 07:39
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: proposal for changed term was Re: RE: Change to Identify Charges. Please responde within 48 hours

Maybe change all types of charges to "all normal charges" and we define normal charges to include:

  1.  Charges that can not be reasonably  avoided by a majority of users e.g.  shipping charge as a pose to picking up the item in the store when most online shopper are not in the neighborhood, handling fee
  2.   Avoidable charges that most  people (over 75% of users) end-up choosing to accept that are directly associated or required with the service a e.g. a small charge for using a credit card, or travel insurance for a trip if that is a typical expense
  3.  and exclude  charges not  directly associated to the service that might be required by some people
e.g. car hire and hotels at the destination )
  4.  and exclude non-essential services that many people value but most do not use (and a small number have to use) e.g. a charge for having an allocated seat rather than sitting in a seat that the airline chooses); paying for having  a heavier bag  (if most passenger don’t pay this charge);

The action of most people is taken as aggregate long term data  of the site usage. (Hence there should not be any sudden changes)

Please respond within 48 hours if you have any objection to this wording change (silence will be considered agreement)
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>



---- On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 02:51:01 +0200 Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote ----
I’m still doubtful about this wording as many low-cost service sites (particularly low-cost airlines) rely heavily on up-selling to try to increase the value of each booking. If any of the additional items they were trying to sell are essential for all customers then I think that:


a)       They shouldn’t present them as additional items at a later stage of the process;

b)      If they did, then it would be essential to let people know in advance (as this proposal demands).

In my, recent, experience that isn’t the problem (and I think that in Europe this practice has been outlawed). The problem is that there are a whole load of additional items in various categories:


a)       Avoidable charges that most people end-up choosing to accept e.g. a small charge for using a credit card (avoided by using a charge card)

b)      Non-essential services that many people value (and a small number have to use) e.g. a charge for having an allocated seat rather than sitting in a seat that the airline chooses);

c)       Services that may be essential for some people at some times but not others (e.g. paying for having hold luggage and even more for a heavier bag – but passengers with only carry-on luggage don’t pay this charge);

d)      Services not directly related to the flight but strongly associated with it (e.g. travel insurance and a charge for using a fast-track lane through security);

e)      Charges not related to the flight that might be required by some people (e.g. car hire and hotels at the destination).

Most of these charges have multiple levels (e.g. luggage, insurance, seating in the best parts of the plane). The proposal’s “all charges” would require all of these charges to be presented before the booking started. This would be incredibly frustrating for almost all users. This is in contrast to the best booking sites where this wide array of options are presented on a few screens that can be quickly ignored and skipped through. People wanting these options may select them from these screens and the exact charges they pay will be presented to those people who want to use the services.

So is “all types of charges” intended to include all of the above optional items? If so, then it will not be possible to give “a minimum or typical value” for car hire, hotel or even hold-luggage costs. Without the costs, I really can’t see how this long list of things that you will be offered during the transaction helps anyone – surely it is likely to confuse and intimidate many people with cognitive disabilities and it will simply annoy everyone else!

If the intended meaning of “all types of charges” is not intended to include things like car hire, hotels, express security channels, etc. how can we word the proposal so that both those trying to meet the requirement and those trying to evaluate whether it has been met can share a common understanding of its scope.

Best regards

Mike

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>]
Sent: 19 November 2016 16:27
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: Change to Identify Charges. Please re

Based on Mike's comments I would like to suggest the following change

Old wording:
Identify Charges: All types of charges and conditions are identified at the start of transaction tasks. When a minimum or typical value is known for a type of charge it must be be made clear at the start of the transaction task.

New wording:
Identify Charges: All types of charges  are identified at the start of transaction tasks. When a minimum or typical value is known for a type of charge it must be be made clear at the start of the transaction task. Conditions and terms are available at the start of transaction tasks.

Please raise any objection in the next 48 hours


Note: this would  allow terms to be under a link but charges to be clearly displayed. T
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>


________________________________