Cognitive Access Three Types of guidelines or strategies?

We might look at the ideas for cognitive access as falling into three
categories.


Type C1)  Those that can be added to a page without changing the look or
feel of the page at all.
         (Many/most of the guidelines for other disabilities fall into this
category.
         Do we have any for cognitive that we don't already have included?
–	Like making text with real text so that it can read aloud for a user)


Type C2)  Those that could be added to a page without anyone thinking the
page was different from standard web pages (except that it was better
designed).
       (These would include such things as using the most straightforward
       and simple words that are appropriate for the site. Or including
graphics
       strategically on the page to help navigation or understanding - but
       not so much that it would not look like a page for mass audiences.


Type C3)  Those that would make a page more accessible to people with
cognitive disabilities but would involve major changes to the look and feel
that might make the page less appealing to mass audiences.
      (These would be used on pages that are specifically tuned to people
      with cognitive disabilities.   Having a page which is primarily
graphic
      or which has not ideas expressed in text that are not also expressed
      graphically would be examples here)


At times I think we seem to be switching back and forth between the three in
a discussion and treating them all as equivalent.  I think that they are
quite different in terms of where they can be applied and what we can or
should mandate.



-- ------------------------------
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

Received on Saturday, 29 April 2000 22:26:23 UTC