Re: Finding Help


Just to be clear, that last bullet in the list is intended to be 
indented, and be a child of "A fully automated chatbot..."?



On 4/9/2020 9:53 AM, Rachael Bradley Montgomery wrote:
> Hello,
> The criteria under the chatbot are additional requirements that came 
> from the COGA taskforce. They are not the same as the examples we 
> removed from the other bullets. They are included within the SC text 
> because certain chatbots are not accessible for people with cognitive 
> disabilities.
> One possible way forward would be to add similar criteria to the self 
> help option that would meet the needs you are concerned about from 
> meeting self-help. I think the SC text would then look something like 
> this though it will need word smithing:
>     For single page appsor any set of web pages
>     <*dfn-set-of-web-pages__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!P4OwOS_1aqzUkvWoi4yTOyKVYLhd9KT4zj7pwInbfAzzmmYtok2MPBl3uOUBgc8Itg$>with
>     blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages
>     <*dfn-web-page-s__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!P4OwOS_1aqzUkvWoi4yTOyKVYLhd9KT4zj7pwInbfAzzmmYtok2MPBl3uOUl2IGCKQ$>,
>     at least one of the following is included or linked in a
>     consistent location:
>       * Human contact details
>       * Human contact mechanism
>       * Self-help option that includes a search capability
>       * A fully automated chatbot that can:
>           o recognize misspelled words,
>           o provide human contact details if the chatbot is unable to
>             provide a satisfactory response after 3 attempts,
>       * be dismissed with a single interaction, and recalled using a
>         link or button.
>     Except for archival unsupported content which is clearly labeled
>     as such, or where finding help would invalidate the activity.
> Thoughts?
> Rachael
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:11 AM Keim, Oliver < 
> <>> wrote:
>     Hello Rachael,
>     moving the examples to the understanding section is certainly a
>     good idea. We appreciate if all the allowed compliance options
>     show discrete examples on conforming to this SC.
>     However, we think that the option of providing an FAQ may not be
>     the very best idea. FAQs are typically short and very general.
>     FAQs are nice to have but do not qualify to fulfill the SC:
>     Our experience with questions from users with special needs are
>     the opposite, ranging from basic to very very specific, such as
>     "what keyboard key can I use to open the value help in a
>     combobox", or "what other touch gestures are provided for the list
>     control, other than 'tap'." These questions are typically not
>     reflected in an FAQ and would make FAQs endless.
>     Therefore the "self-help option" should point to help facilities,
>     which are able to offer information on very detail. Online
>     documentation and context help support it, specifically because
>     the later two often support search capabilities.
>     We agree Human help comes first. Nevertheless we suggest the order
>     is based on distance, from direct human contact, to indirect human
>     contact, to a computer contact (chatbot) and finally self-help.
>     In addition all options should look balanced, that means the
>     details on the chatbot should also go into the understanding section.
>     Kind regards,
>     Oliver (and Gundula)
>>     On 8. Apr 2020, at 20:25, Rachael Bradley Montgomery
>>     <
>>     <>> wrote:
>>     Hello Oliver and Gundula,
>>     We are trying to move Finding Help
>>     <*heading=h.c1ri43umkho0__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!P4OwOS_1aqzUkvWoi4yTOyKVYLhd9KT4zj7pwInbfAzzmmYtok2MPBl3uOX8K1IQhA$>
>>     to CFC and want to work with you to resolve your objections to
>>     the SC.
>>     Oliver, we believe we have addressed your point about the balance
>>     of the bullets by moving the examples from all the bullets to the
>>     understanding documents.
>>     Gundula, you objected to including self-help as an option but, as
>>     Oliver and others pointed out in previous conversations and
>>     emails, many websites and preshipped software can not support a
>>     human option. The intent of this SC, which I believe is being met
>>     with the current SC text, was to:
>>         1. Ensure some form of help was provided and
>>         2. Ensure it is in a consistent location.
>>     To address your concern that organizations may fall back to the
>>     self help option only as it is easiest, I've added a phrase to
>>     the understanding document that states "*Human help is the
>>     recommended option but***if a human is not available to help,
>>     other methods such as a Frequently Asked Questions page must be
>>     provided. "
>>     Do these changes address your concern?
>>     Thank you,
>>     Rachael
>>     -- 
>>     Rachael Montgomery, PhD
>>     Director, Accessible Community
>>     <>
>>     "I will paint this day with laughter;
>>     I will frame this night in song."
>>      - Og Mandino
> -- 
> Rachael Montgomery, PhD
> Director, Accessible Community
> <>
> "I will paint this day with laughter;
> I will frame this night in song."
>  - Og Mandino

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2020 19:55:33 UTC