- From: andy judson <ajudson@computing.dundee.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:12:51 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Colette Nicolle" <c.a.nicolle@lboro.ac.uk>
Hi Lisa, and others... I thought that it would be relevant to add some very rough notes / introduction in to what we are investigating for cognitive impaired users and in particular symbol users. I'm involved in the EU funded WWAAC (world wide augmentative and assistive communication) project along with Bengt Farre, Colette Nicolle and load of other people. In brief: - the are several communication vocabulary sets all of which are proprietary & produced by different companies - there is currently no way of electronic interchange between users, - for example a user of the PCS vocab couldn't send a translated message to a user of a widget vocab. - what we are in the process of developing is a ConceptCodingFramework that will allow such a translation to occur. Roughly... We're building an RDF onthology of concepts (using the Voice of America and the Bliss 1500 most frequent words) - this is done via wordnet and kaon; An API that we'll then pass on to AAC vocab developers for them to export their concepts into - producing an api bridge that matches their concepts to the concepts in our onthology. So in future if someone was sending an email or browsing a webpage, they could translate that material using xpointers and rdf, query our onthology, and choose the representation they want eg. Bliss, PCS etc etc. We're planning to run a workshop this november (in Dundee, Scotland) introducing this work (now it is taking shape). The aim of the workshop is to get input and feedback on the design and implementation, and just to spread the word on this work especially to AAC manufactures. So if you are interested in finding out more on this project or attending the workshop please let me know so I can contact you with further information. Thanks Andy Judson. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of lisa seeman Sent: 25 September 2003 18:28 To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Areas of concern for the cognitively disabled This my attempt at expanding the checkpoints, as Kerstin said this is a move away from guideline writing and a move towards understanding what we are wring. I may not have go into enough detail hear let me know if more is needed, or I am not being clear and I will try again Let me know if you think we should forward this to the list. The core checkpoint on cognitive disabilities: A, The first idea is to provide assistance to enable the user to find and understand core information. To allow user agents to help people find and understand content This is cross disabilities - helping people find the information and transform it to a more useful presentation, help skimming etc. For example, dyslexics are often thought to make a schematic of a page and an outline, this is how I used to take notes for example (you can see more on my paper at the www2002 conference) Why this helps is that I would not have to read and wade through a lot of words to get an overview. If you look at a UB access page map rendering (say http://69.10.136.194/applications/swap/demo/www.rnib.org/pagemap/www.rni b.org ) You can see that we can make an automatic schematic of a site (our next stage will be to make a SVG schematic) However it will only be as useful as the structure of your document and the helpfulness of your title Another example typical of dyslexics: In university I could not take notes, however I would highlight key terms in textbooks as we covered the topic. That meant that at revision time I did not need to read the textbook, I had to look at the highlighted terms -if they made sense, I could move on. If I had no idea why they were highlighted , I needed to read on. In short I want to supply users with a schematic of a site and page so they can find the content that they need. To do that I need important content marketed up, and well worded SO far the wording is: 1, provide uniqueness of page titles 2, provide headings and linked text that are unique and clear when read out of context 3, key terms and key information that the user most typically requires are marked up with structural markup -(note: this is similar to1.3 [CORE] however we are adding a requirement to _identify_ important content - and then incorporate it into structural mark up ) 2, This is a bit different -people need to be able to understand content. Again the emphasis is on user agents- Is it possible for a user agent to simplify? Are humans themselves left confused? Removing ambiguities that can course confusion: these are of the type where the double meaning of a word actually makes sense, but is incorrect -such as "tap the aircraft" - should I go and give it a tap or what - even the best algorithm can not guess this right for you, leaving you with an incorrect message - Hebrew diatric marks: It is true that there is some very expensive and inconvenient user agents that will decipher web content and add the pronunciations. However when the algorism does not work, the user is at a complete loss as to what the page is talking about, and even the most expensive algorithm sometimes do not work well on a site. When this happens the whole page is wrongly interpreted. The user can not decipher the page correctly, because they do not know what the author intended. At the author end however, a quick check of the site with the automated diatric marks added, will tell them if the page is misinterpreted or not. Adding the occasion diatric mark will remedy the situation. 4, when the content is more important then the writing style, clarify Syntactic and Semantic ambiguity, (but not word ambiguity). 5, When the pronunciation at the user end is ambiguous, add dietric marks OK the extended checkpoint Checkpoint 3.3 -E checkpoint 3.3 -provide clear content Preamble: The "review" criteria was added as a compromise position, between allowing us to state some clear writing requirements and making it practical. However in view of us now being able to make this an extended checkpoint, we do not have to have the same concerns. If it is inappropriate for this content to use short sentence - well then the author can still claim accessibility, but just not to this checkpoint. From the user perspective, this page is not accessible this audience if certain clear and certain criteria are not met. I am not intending this checkpoint to be used on most sites. However, sites that need to use it will. Like instructions on how to vote, and adult education sites. More to the point , we need to write guidelines as to how to make content accessible. We need therefore to iterate that this will make your site accessible to people who otherwise can not access your site. Benefits. The fact: using simple words and simple language will allow more people to understand you. There are millions of people who have problems understanding language -written or spoken. There are many people who have worked hard the last thirty years of their life to build up a vocabulary of say 1000 words. If you use simple words more people can understand your content I know Avi ( Voice of America) has simple language broadcasts/. All there news items are described only using words from a short "simple language dictionary/lexicon". This lexicon is available, and is short, and they manage to describe all their news broadcasts using it. We want to say: use words that more people can understand For example use words in a six year old's vocabulary not. However if this is too difficult for your site's content, then try and keep the "age" bar down as much as you can. Not very testable or normative. But this is both testable and normative "All terms used are available in a linked to, fully accessible simple language lexicon, or supplementary lexicon of topic specific Jargon" There are any number of lexicons available. I know when they test children's development they have lists of words that child is expected to understand and use correctly at any given age. Pick your lexicon - but stick to it ------- The next thing I need to say is speak simply. For example, when speaking to a autistic person one would use active voicing. In all languages I know of, one would keep sentences as short as possible, (and of course paragraphs). Again how to make it work across sites needs work - hear is my attempt 2. A language structure is chosen to aid comprehension (such as active voice in languages where this form helps convey information) 3. There is a public available policy statement of acceptable maximum length of nown phrases, and that this policy is conformed to on the site 4. There is a public available policy statement of acceptable number of words in sentences and that this policy is conformed to on the site 3. There is a public available policy statement of acceptable maximum number of sentences in paragraphs and that this policy is conformed to on the site 7. Separate ideas are provided in a separate paragraphs ------ one more point - not everyone can use language -some people work with pictures or symbols For people without language or with very weak language skills, conversion to symbols is necessary -and for that the user agent has to know what text is important to convert, and have the uncertainties in natural language removed. On the other hand there are also people with low language skills who can manage some language but a diagram is much more useful for them. The low language skills user will want illustrations instead of learning symbols (similar to the difference between low vision and no vision). 8. The key term or idea of each paragraph is easily identifiable (techniques: through markup like me, or by "front loading") 9. Inclusion of non-text content to symbolize or replace text for key pages 10. Clarity of references are provided for pronouns and anaphoric expressions (these refer back to something already said in the text) 11. Conjunction forms and adverbs are used correctly to make explicit the relationship between phrases or parts of the text such as "and," "but," "furthermore," "not only" Miscellaneous: > 12. Clarify the logic in the order and flow of information (for example > provide a summary, document map or flow diagram) Benefit: it is like the core checkpoint but the onus s on the author to provide the summary > 13. Provide all steps in required actions or in the explanation of > instructions This should be obvious - if not let me know > 14. Provide consistency in the use of names and labels Then a note on how to make a policy statement ( e.g.- a policy statement should balance and justify the following factors All the best Lisa Seeman Visit us at the UB Access website UB Access - Moving internet accessibility -----Original Message----- From: Kerstin Goldsmith [mailto:kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:22 AM To: lisa seeman; Cynthia Shelly; Wendy A Chisholm Subject: Areas of concern for the cognitively disabled Hi, Lisa, Cynthia, Wendy: Lisa, Cynthia and I met last week to talk about the areas of WCAG 2.0 that were meant to address solutions/requirements for people with cognitive disabilities. I thought it was a good discussion, and certainly seemed to lead to an idea good process for approaching some solutions for including as much testable material as is feasible, while still retaining untestable material as essential. What we agreed was that Lisa would expound on all the ideas that were chopped up into pieces in the current checkpoints, adding as much detail and background as possible, including benefits, history, profiles of the kinds of disabilities, etc.. From this expansion, we could then work backwards to make a list of checkpoints, and then from there try to decide what could be core and what would have to be extended. So, Lisa, two things: First, let me apologize for blundering and using the phrase "dumbing down" when talking about reading James Joyce. I think that it was an obvious reference to my own need, and Cynthia's, for simplification of Joyce's ideas, but the moment it slipped out of my mouth, laughing as I was, it felt totally inappropriate. So, I am sorry. Second, were you able to get any more ideas down on paper about what I talk about in the paragraph above? If not, when can we see something, so that this idea and these issues have some kind of timeline for resolution, if that's fair to ask. I am eager to get back to work on this - I think Wendy will be back next week, so maybe we can all reconvene then? It was nice "meeting" you on the phone, Lisa. Hope to talk to you, and Cynthia and Wendy, soon! Cheers, -Kerstin
Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 08:13:00 UTC