- From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:51:55 -0700
- To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Great idea (both the browser and the vacation :-) Given the amount of confusion in this group on CD, and the difficulties that Web Designers/Developers have had understanding the need for much more concrete concepts like audio interface, I agree with Kynn that it's impractical and unrealistic to expect all Web Designers/Developers to understand CD and be able to design interfaces for it. Web designers live in a world where time-to-market is the single most important thing, often determining whether your company lives or dies. If we post a requirement that has significant impact on that, it will be ignored. That's the reality of the market. If, however we can provide simple, concrete ways to meet the requirements of the Cognitively Disabled with minimal time investment, many more Web Designers will do it. Creating a specialized browser or plugin and some tags it can read does exactly this. Only the developer of the specialized tool has to understand the needs users with CD, which, I think the discussion on this alias demonstrates, is a pretty specialized skill. --Cynthia -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 7:45 PM To: 'Kynn Bartlett'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Kynn's Analysis of CD Web Accessibility Interesting thoughts Kynn. So it shifts to "How do we mark up a page to work with tools a person with different cognitive disabilities might use?" Maybe we should all take a vacation. Lets think about this some more. I think you have an interesting idea. By the way - there is another difference. - we can make most pages accessible to someone with a visual disability or no vision - we can make most pages accessible to someone with a hearing disability or no hearing - we can make most pages accessible to someone with a physical disability or no physical ability (via neuro or eeg link) - we can make most pages accessible to someone with a mild cognitive disability, but only some with a severe cognitive disability and none if they have no cognition. Thus - we will be much more limited in our ability to address access to the web in general by people with serious cognitive disabilities than for people with serious visual, hearing or physical disabilities. But your approach is interesting..... A browser for people with cognitive disabilities.... Hmmmm Or several for different types.. (but maybe one with adjustments) Lots to think about here. I think there are limitations to what we can do today - but it will increase over time as we get better semantic analysis tools. We still need the guidelines we have.... But this might allow us go further. Trying to do it will certainly be a challenge though. By the way: the 508 guidelines just came out and there is no cognitive guidelines left in it anywhere that I could find. So this will be even more important to see what can be done in the way of a browser - or user agent. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Human Factors Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. Director - Trace R & D Center Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/ FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 7:33 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Kynn's Analysis of CD Web Accessibility Importance: High Having taken a vacation this last week, both physically and from the net, I've had time to consider the issues related to accessibility for people with cognitive disabilities. One key question I've been wrestling with has been "is this different than enabling access for people with other disabilities (e.g. those with mobility/dexterity, vision, or hearing impairments), and if so, why is this different?" It certainly has *felt* different to me, and so I've had to consider why exactly that difference may be. Here's what I concluded: When creating a web page that can be used by people with other disabilities, we are not making the page -directly- accessible to them, we are making the page accessible to their assistive technologies. For example, when I create a page that can be used by someone who is unable to see, I am not actually creating the sound files and sound-based navigation structure she needs in order to achieve accessibility; instead, I am ensuring that my page interacts properly with her screenreader and/or specialized web browser that can provide for her what she needs. To enable access for a user without mousing ability, I don't have to write a keyboard driver or explicitly program a javascript keyboard-based interface for my page; I simply need to make it compatible with the user's assistive technology. However, when dealing with people with cognitive disabilities, I'm not dealing with the assistive technology -- instead, I've got to make the page *directly accessible* to the user. This puts me in the position not of a web designer seeking to make his page interoperable with someone's access device, but instead, one meta-level *up* -- I -am- designing their assistive technology! I believe this helps explain many of the problems faced by the Web Accessibility Initiative regarding the issues related to CD accessibility -- putting us in the position of directly creating the interfaces. An analogous situation would be if the WAI were trying to design a screenreader or voicing browser. (Now, the WAI -does- suggest requirements for web browsers -- but that's generally been done in the User Agent working group...) This line of thought led me on to the question (as long as I'm being asked to be an accessible interface designer!) of: If I were creating a browser or other designed to enable web access for people with cognitive disabilities, what would that browser be like? Now, of course, there's a need for a breakdown of "people with cognitive disabilities" into smaller groups, because as we know, that grouping covers a pretty broad range of disability types. And I personally don't have the expertise to describe their needs or how to meet them, but I can suggest some ways in which various theoretical needs may be met. PRODUCT SPEC: CogWeb 1.0 This describes a theoretical user agent, CogWeb 1.0, created to meet the needs of users with cognitive disabilities. * Screenreader Compatibility: CogWeb interfaces with any screenreader or accessibility technologies installed in the user's operating system, allowing for words, phrases, and web pages to be read out loud to enable access for non-readers. A button on the toolbar allows for the current highlighted text to be read out loud. * Graphical Icon Library: At the user's request, CogWeb will include additional graphics when displaying a web page. These graphics will be chosen from a large (5,000 images or so) library of images that come with the CogWeb program. AI-style text analysis allows for subtle differences in context and meaning to be expressed. The text of each icon appears below the icon a la "Ruby." Web designers can also specify their own image sets and/or embed graphic "hints" for unknown words. * Definition Engine: A powerful context-sensitive English dictionary -- written at a relatively low reading level (say, a children's dictionary) -- allows the user to select a word and then click on the "define" button. The definition is either popped up in a new window or read out loud, according to the user's needs and desires. * Page Layout Simplification: By restructuring the display of web pages, CogWeb makes comprehension of a site simpler and easier to navigate. Content analysis identifies the navigation components of the page, unstacks overly confusing layouts (such as overuse of tables), and builds simplified navigation schemes, such as graphically-labeled "next" and "previous" buttons in the toolbar that allow for standardized access to site contents across a variety of sites. Okay, so if this is my theoretical assistive technology device -- how do I, as a web designer, provide the information it needs in order to present an accessible view of a page to someone? Here's some techniques I'll have to keep in mind: * Follow the methods (such as ALT text for images, etc) that enable screenreader access to my content. * Identify long words and mark them up with either the URI of an icon or a list of related words/concepts: <span cog:uri="http://www.kynn.com/icons/tibmastiff.gif" >Tibetan Mastiff</span> <span cog:keywords="dog, fuzzy, black, large, guard, pet">Tibetan Mastiff</span> This allows CogWeb to either download and display the icon (which must be 100 x 100 pixels in size), or to choose the best icon from the graphics library that matches the keyword -- for example, choosing a larger black dog icon (say, a Newfoundland) instead of a smaller, white dog (poodle). * Designate at least one additional web-based dictionary on pages that use complex language (dictionaries defined in an XML-based markup syntax): <link cog:lexicon="http://www.kynn.com/lexicons/lex01.xml" /> Identify words or phrases that might be problematic and provide links to definitions; as well, list alternative text definitions inline: <span cog:lexicon="http://www.dogshow.com/vdslex.xml#catalog" cog:def="pictures of dogs" >Catalog</span> * Create pages where the navigation scheme is explicitly designated in the markup; use the link elements and the rel/rev attributes to designate relationships between pages in a collection. These relationships are displayed on the tool bar -- see iCab for an idea of how this may be done. * Design pages which degrade gracefully when tables are removed and which allow for linearization of content. What do you think about this -style of approach- to the situation? How offensive is it to suggest that the solution is to work with rather than create the assistive technology? If that's a viable approach -- who, if anyone, is working on the research and development of tools especially for our CD friends? (In my opinion, it's not reasonable to put the entire burden of providing accessibility to people with CD on the shoulders of web designers!) -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Catch the web accessibility meme! http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2000 23:31:53 UTC