- From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:17:15 +0000
- To: David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>, "James A." <A.James@soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Fazio Thanks for that summary link. That's very interesting indeed. I totally agree we need our Patterns to have a solid traceable evidence basis in practice, science and other research. However while those details are important for shaping the design patterns we are working on, they are too much detailed to have in the Design Guide document itself. At least in it's current form which is for developers / designers who want to ensure accessibility of their creations. They need clear guidelines to follow and implement. Rather these concepts could be included in the User Research [1] and used to inform the Gap Analysis [2], which in turn influence the Design Guide contents. We always advise that automated tests based on WCAG must be supplemented by user testing. I think these neuropsychological tests will be important for guiding user testing based on WCGA requirements and our Supplemental Patterns in the Design Guide. Perhaps we could also provide supplemental guidance on how to apply the results of such tests. Given the amount of work we have to do and our current focus on the Design Guide I expect we will being iterating on these other documents. Thus, we can then figure how neuropsychological tests can be used to guide new Design Guide lines by adding new information to the User Research and tracing it through. You've highlighted a very important point - accessibility is a "one size fits one" thing - ie everyone has their own requirements. The neuropsychological tests appear to be an important tool for evaluating an individual requirements. By their nature, the Design Guide Patterns have to address Gaps that we identify as being reasonably common. Not so much the long tail. This leads to the thought that such neuropsychological tests could be very useful in informing which CogA features the W3Cs personalisation work should support. Thanks Steve 1: https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-user-research/ 2: On 12/03/2019 22:17, David Fazio wrote: > Again, neuropsychological evaluations provide definitions for this based > on empirical evidence, we can use their testing criteria to coincide > with our efforts. Here’s a limited informal description from WebMD: > https://www.webmd.com/brain/neuropsychological-test > > In my opinion, it’s essential to keep in line with neuropsychology > community on this one. > > - Fazio > > This message was Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typographic errors. > > On Mar 12, 2019, at 1:13 PM, James A. <A.James@soton.ac.uk > <mailto:A.James@soton.ac.uk>> wrote: > >> Hi Steve >> >> I think your approach will make the pattern clearer. My only comment >> is whether there are other types of complex information that should be >> mentioned. For example graphs and tables may be complex in themselves, >> particularly if there are many options to select to change information >> (I am thinking about data visualisations and analytics here). The >> current pattern talks about forms and I see forms with if - then >> situation ie additional fields appear if you change a radio button, >> popups are introduced with limited instructions. Or forms can be so >> sparse I don't know what they are asking for. >> >> Also does "complex content" include UI components? Toolbars and menus >> can be too complex for people with cognitive disabilities and there is >> some research on this. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Abi >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org <mailto:stevelee@w3.org>> >> Sent: 12 March 2019 18:10 >> To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org >> <mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>> >> Subject: Pattern: Provide help for complex content >> >> The original design Guide content [1] is rather confusing but during >> my work on this I decide I had 3 distinct uses cases to drive the >> Pattern(s) >> >> - I can understand complex content as contextually-relevant graphs, >> pictures and tables are provided to supplement it >> >> - I can understand complex tables or graphs as extra help is provided >> to explain the important features >> >> - I can understand a multi stage process as help is provided for all >> stages and the sequence is always clear >> >> Does that seem correct? >> >> In addition: >> >> a) I'd rather split these into 3 separate patterns so there's 1 use >> case per pattern >> >> b) They all seem to be more about providing good clear and self >> supporting content rather than "help" so perhaps should be moved to >> Object 3? Certainly the 1st one is a good candidate for this. >> >> c) The first use case is a bit vague. What is 'complex' content? >> >> Comments please. >> >> Steve >> >> 1: >> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fcoga%2Fdesign%2F%23provide-help-for-complex-information&data=01%7C01%7Ca.james%40soton.ac.uk%7C4708234e10d34fec900d08d6a716048d%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0&sdata=Ioq13%2Ff%2FReoLjvFjBqunfr41Aa5YQBcvHBZs%2BQ0nygo%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2019 09:17:24 UTC