RE: Cognitive SC 1.4.8

Hi David
 
Thanks for you patience in asking me to review the success criteria, I am
not sure I have really what you need, but this is the best I can do right
now.  Also this is my option, not more.
 
I have  a few issues with the checkpoint, the first is in the details and
the second is in the concept
 
1, Details - 
1.1. Some point hear do not seem useful, or not very useful ( considering
that the basic needs of this group have not been accounted for) They are:
 
   "  Providing a mechanism to select foreground and background
colours/hues. (HTML, CSS) "
 " Presenting blocks of text not more than 500px wide or providing a
mechanism to achieve this. " (see point 2 bellow)
 
1.2 Another point seems a bit mixed up. 
"Avoiding text that is fully justified (to both left and right margins) in a
way that can cause space greater than 2 "M" width space between words, or
characters or providing a mechanism to remove justification (future link)
[LC-1253] [LC-569 (add)] "
Problems with  SC above:
a, the issue with justification is normally defined as to avoid a jagged
edge such as with multi sentence centred text. 
b, The greater than 2 "M" is not the problem as much as when it is less the
1 "m"
 
 
1.3 I do not this a sans serif font is good. In fact I think it should be
avoided (see   <http://www.mencap.org.uk/download/webaccess.pdf>
http://www.mencap.org.uk/download/webaccess.pdf ) 
 
2, Conceptual
 My main problem with the the checkpoint is the approach. Even if the
details were correct, it will only be reliably helpful if the text is clear
and simple (or there is a mechanism for converting them). For example a long
winded hugely long sentence, not much is gained by this SC for learning
disabilities. (low vision is a different issue) 
 
Take the case of a  long paragraphs which has been badly structured. When
you increase the font size and reduce the width of the text display,  you
will then need to scroll down to get the whole paragraph at one time. This
itself  raises the requirement  for  a good short term memory and language
skills. In other words it will be less accessible. Now lets assume that the
long sentence is in a long paragraph that has a lot of acronyms. Now they
are only required to expand the first use of the acronym. When the second
occurrence of an acronym happens the user may have to scroll up, find the
acronym, scroll down and then re- find the place. This requires visual
memory and an ability to focus, etc. Keeping related information in one view
has a real advantage.   
 
(When I come across this type of document I often write down the acronyms
and jargon as I go so I have them in a separate paper for reference. Not
very easy to use, especially when you copy it wrong... )
 
Please let me clarify. If you have a well structured and  well written page
then a this type of checkpoint is really useful. 
However  when I say well structured and  well written page I include:  

*	

	short sentence, 
*	

	short paragraphs, 
*	

	clear and simple words,
*	

	lists, 
*	

	optimum use of icons 
*	

	good use of colours to identify types of content and structure, 

 
Without this I think it can make a bad page worse.
 
 
All the best
 
Lisa
 
 
 
 
 

  _____  

From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca] 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:05 AM
To: 'Lisa Seeman'
Subject: RE: Cognitive



Hi Lisa

 

Any luck on research?

 

Thanks.

David

 

access empowers people...

        ...barriers disable them...

 

www.eramp.com

From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:25 AM
To: 'David MacDonald'
Subject: RE: Cognitive

 

Hi David

 

 

This is a hard one. I know there is research somewhere but I am having
trouble laying hands on it - I will try again after the Jewish new year.

 

I am wondering however about the affect of this as bay itself without short
sentences and paragraphs, or decent structure. Long text spanning pages will
not help if you can not remember the previous sections. I am wondering how
much this is thought though,

 

 

Lisa

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca] 
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 1:28 AM
To: 'Lisa Seeman'
Subject: Cognitive

Hi Lisa

 

I've been trying to push forward a SC on readability for cognitive, learning
and language issues to the group. It's hard slugging as you might imagine.
However, I have a tentative yes on the following SC.

 

1.4.8 : The visual presentation of text does not contain identified
obstructions to readability. 

 

The following techniques are necessary to satisfy this Success Criteria
(inclusive):

.         Providing a mechanism to select foreground and background
colors/hues. (HTML, CSS) 

.         Presenting text in sans serif font or providing a mechanism to
achieve this (CSS) 

.         Providing controls on the Web page that incrementally change the
size of the text (cross link) 

.         Presenting blocks of text not more than 500px wide or providing a
mechanism to achieve this. 

.         Avoiding text that is fully justified (to both left and right
margins) in a way that can cause space greater than 2 "M" width space
between words, or characters or providing a mechanism to remove
justification (future link) [LC-1253] [LC-569 (add)] 

.         Providing sufficient inter-line and inter-column spacing or
providing a mechanism to achieve this. [LC-569 (add)]

 

Do you have any data in the form of research papers that justifies each of
these above techniques? Or could you get access to any research papers on
this.

 

Regards

David MacDonald

 

access empowers people...

        ...barriers disable them...

 

www.eramp.com