W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > October 2019

Re: re Findable Help proposed success criteria

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:24:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxzdcsBEVOGBshv9J3RCVGOnr6riMXy8Wjf0s+VWPwaPSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Delisi, Jennie (MNIT)" <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Jennie,

The concern here (at least for me) is defining "effective", which is and
always will be subjective, right down to the individual end-user.

There is also the additional concern of why the chat-bot is there, and what
task or activity might be associated to that particular form of "help" -
i.e. the complexity of the task (for any individual) will have a direct
relationship on needing help and/or assistance, which might range from an
automated "FAQ" (i.e. one potential chatbot solution), versus at the end, a
user *absolutely* needing to have real-time human assistance.

In other words, there are different types (and levels) of "help", and if
the actual goal here is to provide real-time human assistance, then we need
to be crystal clear in scoping that out, which is but one form of help.


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:57 AM Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <
jennie.delisi@state.mn.us> wrote:

> Hello,
> Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the Findable Help proposed
> success criteria with the Accessibility Guidelines group. I think it went
> well, and there was both good feedback and a greater understanding of the
> challenges faced by some with cognitive disabilities as they try to
> complete a task and need help.
> I’m currently reviewing all the feedback, and will be reaching out with
> requests as I revise and prepare for Tuesday’s meeting when this will again
> be on the agenda.
> One suggestion from a group member was “I think we need data to back up
> automated chatbots being ineffective, especially since they might also be
> used in support pages or help content.”
> Another posed the concept of the best, most intuitive and helpful chatbot
> you could conceive of – what if someone makes that? Would it still fail
> this?
> So, I’m asking this COGA group:
>    1. Please send links to research you may have in regards to chatbots
>    not being effective.
>    2. Could you send a sentence or two about: If there was an ideal
>    chatbot, it would…?
> Please know that I am not confident that we could write enough specifics
> to make the chatbot piece doable for individuals with cognitive
> disabilities, however, I want to pose the question to this group since it
> was asked during the meeting.
> Thanks,
> Jennie
> *Jennie Delisi, MA, CPWA*
> Accessibility Analyst | Office of Accessibility
> *Minnesota IT Services* |* Partners in Performance*
> 658 Cedar Street
> St. Paul, MN 55155
> O: 651-201-1135
> *Information Technology for Minnesota Government* | mn.gov/mnit
> [image: Minnesota IT Services Logo]
> [image: Facebook logo] <https://www.facebook.com/MN.ITServices>[image:
> LinkedIn logo] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/mn-it-services>[image:
> Twitter logo] <https://twitter.com/mnit_services>

*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good

(image/png attachment: image001.png)

(image/png attachment: image002.png)

(image/png attachment: image003.png)

(image/png attachment: image004.png)

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2019 15:25:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:04 UTC