- From: Chuck Hitchcock <chitchcock@cast.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:10:58 -0400
- To: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jason wrote on 8/2/99: >I agree with the sentiments that Chris has expressed. >Research findings should be able to indicate what types >of cognitive limitations exist, the kinds of communication >strategies which have proved most effective in minimizing >their impact, etc. At this stage we do not appear to have >broad agreement even in connection with such basic points. I too agree with this view and want to offer a few additional comments. Gregg and I recently participated in a teleconference working group organized by the World Institute on Disability (WID) pertaining to cognitive issues and telecommunications. There were many opinions but we had some difficulty estimating populations for various groups and then agreeing on a theoretical model for cognition. WID had to complete this work for a contract with a well-known university and brought together many experts with a wide range of views and opinions. In the end, the model selected by the person charged with writing the report was used. Since time was short, we basically decided to do what was reasonably expedient. Jason also wrote: >The question which emerges is whether there are any further, >or more specific requirements that should be introduced. I suspect that we should attempt to include one or two additional categories here. One that immediately comes to mind has to do with the logical presentation of information. Many writers know how to develop an idea so that it will be inclusive of a wide range of readers but we also know that for some, it is important to gain a sense of the whole, to know where one is headed, before chewing into the details. This can be done with abstracts but we are looking at ways to compress content into main and sub-headings prior to presenting the whole. XML and CSS seem like a good direction but we are working mostly within the constraints of HTML for the moment. Methods for emphasizing the main points are also under consideration. Of course all of this can get very complicated depending on the author's purpose and style. Another pertains to the ordering of the information and how it is presented on the page. In informal applied research in high schools, we have been experimenting with how images and links are used within a talking browser that also provides synchronized highlighting of text as it is read. One other point has to do with the functionality that should be in the browser. It should be possible, for example, to help those who are easily distracted and perhaps a bit disorganized by providing a tool which highlights content for those who can see the page. This method can focus attention on selected areas of the text or media (this is tricky) and help some to stay focused. The browser should contain this capability although a small Power Tool might do the trick. An approach that we might consider is to put forward a brief list of similar ideas then do some searching to establish that there is support for the ideas and solutions. In some cases, we will be able to find specific research findings. In other cases, we may have to rely on tested usability guidelines when they are both available and commonly agreed to. It may be a good idea to indicate which items can be supported with applied and/or pure research. Chuck
Received on Monday, 2 August 1999 23:09:58 UTC