AccessU 2017: Bridging the Cognitive Divide with Accessibility Standards

© Copyright IBM Corporation 2017
Bridging the Cognitive Divide
with Accessibility Standards
May 18, 2017
Mary Jo Mueller, Susann Keohane

Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager
maryjom@us.ibm.com
@1mjmueller
Susann Keohane
IBM Global Research Leader for Aging Initiative
skeohane@us.ibm.com
@skeohane1

Content
• Overview Web Accessibility
• Cognitive disabilities & statistics
• COGA task force, research, roadmap and other activities
• Success Criteria in WCAG 2.1 first draft
• Addressing success criteria requirements
• Best practices for designing for COGA
Knowledge of
accessibility
• Understand cognitive
issues
• See proposals for
cognitive web
accessibility standards

Global Web Accessibility Standards
4

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
WCAG 2.0 finalized December 2008
WCAG 2.1- in development
• First Public Working Draft published Feb 2017
• Timeline
• Working Draft: May 16, 2017
• Working Draft: June 20, 2017
• Recommendation June 2018
• Task Forces developed proposals for:
• Users with cognitive or learning disabilities
• Users with low vision
• Small- and touch-screen mobile devices
5

Web Accessibility Initiative -
Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)
WAI-ARIA 1.0 finalized March 2014
WAI-ARIA 1.1- nearing finalization
• Candidate Recommendation published Oct. 2016
• Timeline – Recommendation status imminent
WAI-ARIA 2.0 – in development
• COGA Task Force developing proposal:
• WAI-ARIA Extensions for personalization
6

Importance of Web accessibility standards
• More consistent understanding
• Researched guidance
• Implemented in infrastructure
• Worldwide policies and regulations
7

Cognitive disabilities
Conditions that impact a person’s ability to use a website including:
• memory
• reading text
• problem solving
• keeping focused (attention span)
• computation (for example calculations)

Worldwide statistics on cognitive disabilities
10%
of the worldwide
population*
6.3-10%
of school aged children
*From 2013 review by University College London
Photocredit:
Flickr/PaulFisher
9 SK

Aging population 65+ years old
• 2030: 19% of US population
• 2050:
• 33% in Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain
• 110 Million with dementia worldwide
• Common to have mild cognitive
impairment
• Many suffer anxiety or depression
Photocredit:
Flickr/PatrickDoheny
10

Day-to-day impact
Meanwhile…
Many systems have
become increasingly
complex.
Photocredit:
Flickr/Paul

Television
Photocredit:
Flickr/MarcinWichary
Photocredit:
Flickr/ScottAkerman
Photocredit:
Flickr/CliveDarra

Telephone
Photocredit:
Flickr/ajmexico
Photocredit:
Flickr/SteveSnodgrass
Photocredit:
Flickr/EduardoWoo

Climate control
Photocredit:
Flickr/AlanLevine
Photocredit:
Flickr/JohnLoo

Smart home thermostat
15

Email
Photocredit:
Flickr/Tiitrius

Voice Interaction

The Cognitive and Learning Disabilities
Accessibility Task Force (COGA)
Accessible
Platform
Architectures WG
Accessibility
Guidelines WG
COGA Task Force
Goal: To improve Web
accessibility and usability for
people with cognitive and
learning disabilities.
Challenges:
• Many types of disabilities
• Research behind pay walls
• Attitudes / Undeclared
MJ

Cognitive Accessibility Task Force (COGA) Roadmap
Research User
research
Issue papers
Gap analysis
User needs
WCAG 2.1 Techniques Draft criteria
Refine and
finalize
Full
technology
support
ARIA
semantics
Metadata
Browser &
AT support

User research (Phase 1)
• Dyslexia
• Dyscalculia
• ADD/ADHD
• Non-verbal (brain injury, aphasia)
• Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)
• Dementia
• Intellectual disability (down syndrome)
• Autism
See https://w3c.github.io/wcag/coga/user-research.html

Issue papers – Security example
Issues:
• Prevents people from using the system at all
• Too many steps to authenticate
• User can’t remember passwords
Potential solutions:
• Biometrics
• Key tokens delivered through USB
• Near Field Communication (NFC) readers
• New specifications with handshaking
See https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/

Techniques example
Examples of techniques that seem to
help all our user groups include
recommending that the author divide
content into manageable chunks.
This includes having one subject per
screen as well as one idea per
paragraph and employing the use of
short sentences. A large font can also
be helpful.
Examples of techniques that
help all our user groups
Divide content into manageable
chunks
• One subject per screen
• One idea per paragraph
• Use short sentences
See https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/techniques/index.html

Develop Success Criteria Proposals for WCAG 2.1
Example: Guideline 3.1- Make text content readable and understandable
Current (at Level A and AA)
3.1.1 Language of Page: The default
human language of each page ..(Level A)
3.1.2 Language of Parts: The human
language of each passage or phrase in
the content can be programmatically
determined except ..(Level AA)
Avoid jargon, readability level AAA
Add:
• Use a clear structure
• Use a clear writing style
• Use visually clear objects
• Plain and simple words

A new WCAG success criteria…
• Addresses situations where PwD are at a much greater
disadvantage
• Describes conditions to meet the criteria, but not the method
• Is testable
• Is applicable across technologies
• Has methods/tools to implement it
…and more!
See https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria

COGA success criteria proposals in WCAG 2.1 FPWD
• 1.3.4 Support Personalization (Minimum)
• 2.2.6 Timeouts
• 2.2.8 Interruptions (Minimum)
• 3.1.7 Plain language (Minimum)
• 3.1.8 Manageable Blocks
• 3.1.9 Extra Symbols
• 3.2.7 Familiar Design (Minimum)
• 3.3.7 Minimize User Errors
• 3.3.8 Undo
• 3.3.9 Provide Support
Many more to
consider for next
draft
(total 37)
See https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-WCAG21-20170228/

26

1.3.4 Support Personalization (minimum) (Level A) -
Proposed
A version of the content is available such that one
of the following is true:
• It serves the same purpose as the content; important
information comes before other information; there are a
maximum of 5 controls per screen; and controls have icons
and visible text labels.
• Contextual Information that can be conveyed through author
settable properties or meta-data is available for essential
functionality and content. Critical features can be programmatic
determined.

2.2.6 Timeouts (Level A) - Proposed
Where data can be lost due to timeouts, users are
warned at the start of a process about the length
of inactivity that generates the timeout, unless the
data is preserved for a minimum of a 24 hours of
user inactivity.

2.2.6 Interruptions (minimum) (Level A) - Proposed
There is an easily available
mechanism to postpone and
suppress interruptions and
changes in content unless they
are initiated by the user or
involve an emergency.
Consensus
reached

3.1.7 Plain language (Minimum) (Level A) - Proposed
For error messages that require a response to continue,
instructions, labels and navigational elements all of the
following are true:
Double negatives: Double negatives are not used to express a positive
statement.
Common words: Provide words or phrases from a public core vocabulary; or
the most common 1500 words or phrases (including word roots); or word,
phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form to refer to the
concept in a public word frequency list for the identified context.
Concrete language: Non-literal language is not used, or can be automatically
replaced, via an easy-to-set user setting. All meaning must be retained when
non-literal text is replaced.

3.1.8 Manageable blocks (Level AA) - Proposed
Statements which instruct a user to make a choice or take an
action:
• have only one instruction per sentence, except when two things
have to be done simultaneously;
• use sentences of no more than 15 words;
• should have no more than one relative pronoun per sentence.

3.1.9 Extra Symbols (Level AA) - Proposed
A mechanism is available such that controls that are used to
reach, or are part of, a critical service, and each instruction that
contains important information that directly relates to a critical
service, is preceded by a symbol or picture, which relates to the
topic of the control or instruction.
MJ

3.2.7 Familiar Design (Minimum) (Level A) - Proposed
Help, navigation to help and search forms are easily
identifiable and available to the user in one or more of the
following ways:
Platform specific: A platform specific user interface design.
Adaptive interface: An adaptive user interface design that can be
personalized.
User interface from a prior version: A user interface design that
was used successfully by users in a prior version of the application.
Exception: The style is an essential part of the main function of the
site, such as for a game.

3.3.7 Minimize user errors (Level A) - Proposed
Where it is possible to provide pre-defined choices, the
user can select from a list of valid input values. Where
users must manually enter numerical inputs, alternative
separator characters are accepted.
Exceptions:
• Where pre-defined choices for a piece of data have more than thirty-
one valid values, it is not necessary to provide pre-defined choices.
For example, a piece of data with more then 31 choices could be a
year in a date field.
• Where pre-defined choices interfere with the main purpose of the
content.
• Where alternative separator characters could alter the numeric value,
such as substituting commas with periods.

3.3.8 Undo (Level A) - Proposed
Users are provided with the ability to undo an action and
to correct mistakes such that:
• a user can go back steps in a process via a clearly labeled
action; or
• the user can repair information via a clearly labeled action and
get back to the place they were at, via a clearly labeled action,
without unwanted loss of data.

3.3.9 Provide Support (Level AA) - Proposed
Content is provided that helps users understand long
documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal
directions, multi-page forms and non-standard controls.

Parts of a Success Criterion
• Short name
• Priority level (Level A, AA, or AAA)
• Success criterion text
• Glossary definitions
• Intent of the criteria
• User benefits
• Techniques and failures
• How to test conformance
SK

Example: 3.1.7 Plain language (Minimum)
3.1.7 Plain language (minimum): For error messages that require a
response to continue, instructions, labels and navigational
elements all of the following are true: (Level A)
• Double negatives: Double negatives are not used to express a positive
statement.
• Common words: Provide words or phrases from a public core vocabulary;
or the most common 1500 words or phrases (including word roots); or word,
• Concrete language: Non-literal language is not used, or can be
automatically replaced, via an easy-to-set user setting. All meaning must be
retained when non-literal text is replaced.

Success Criterion short name and priority level
3.1.7 Plain language (minimum)
Recommended priority is (Level A) – high impact to
user, widely implementable

Success Criterion text - Scope
For error messages that require a response to
continue, instructions, labels and navigational elements
all of the following are true:

Success criterion text – Specific, testable requirements
• Double negatives: Double negatives are not used to express a positive
statement.
• Common words: Provide words or phrases from a public core vocabulary;
or the most common 1500 words or phrases (including word roots); or word,
• Concrete language: Non-literal language is not used, or can be
automatically replaced, via an easy-to-set user setting. All meaning must be
retained when non-literal text is replaced.

Success Criterion text - Exceptions
Except: Content is exempt if the writing style is an essential part of
the main function of the site, such as a game, a literary work, or
teaching new terms.
MJ

Definitions
Identified context - context and a context specific word
frequency list (and glossary) has been identified in an
accessibility statement or other known technique. A word
frequency list has to be generated from at least 1000 sources
from the same context or how ever many pages can
reasonably be found.

Techniques
Techniques would include:
• Using a title tag to provide a simple language equivalent
• Using the coga-easylang attribute (preferred)
• Providing extra text via personalization semantics
• Using simple words

Tools
Technology support includes:
• Word frequency generator for a given context, (reads the URI's list and
generates a word frequency list),
• Existing word frequency lists, checker to test that words are in the most
• IBM cognitive content clarifier tool
And add an exception
• If there are no tools available in the language of the content that identify
uncommon words, instructions that are longer then 400 words are exempt
unless they directly relate to a critical service

Integration
Different
standards
E.g. Voice,
Security
API
support
External
services
Meta
data
Coga-
WCAG
User
Experience
Issue
support
Portable
preferences
In-page
semantics
Personal
preference
(JSON)

Cognitive Disability Pose a Unique Design Challenge
• Unable to group and generalize the wide spectrum of Cognitive
Disabilities
• Specifically, Aging is different, gradual and personal
• Abilities are different
• Techniques of adaptation are unique
• Typical guides and heuristics for UX and accessibility may not
cover all Cognitive Disabilities

Currently, WCAG Isn’t Enough
• Decent foundation, but does not define usability and experience
• Still very weak on cognitive
• Does not talk about alleviating fears or bridging gaps

General Tips
• Understand People with Cognitive Disabilities first-hand
• Different context and view of the world
• Ethnography, Interviews, Focus Groups
• Understand and Build on WCAG
• Follow design heuristics
• Use design thinking – iterative, user-centered design

Designing for Cognitive disabilities considerations
• If not impacted earlier, Cognitive decline begins generally
sometime in the mid to late 40's
• Reduced attention span
• Reduced short term memory - lose context / focus
• Less generalization - skill transfer between situations –
association
• Difficult words take longer to recall
• Difficult to multitask
• More easily overwhelmed - cognitive load
• More linear approach

Designing for Cognitive
• Very simple architecture (2 child branches max for iOS)
• Simple menu structure
• Reduce visual noise and distractions
• Make things quick – consider context of limited connection
and slow responses
• Use descriptive labels for confusing icons

Designing for Cognitive (cont.)
• Flow should be one task at a time
• iOS Human Interface guidelines promote this structure
• Progressive Disclosure
• Use minimum amount of features to accomplish a specific goal
• Use positive reinforcement - promote technical independence
• Provide a linear path with visited links

Personalized delivery of Web content
53

Enable Personalization through ARIA semantics & metadata
Some of the reasons personalization is essential for full usability include:
• Different user needs can conflict
• Learning new designs could be confusing for some users, and they should
be able to continue using the design patterns familiar to them
• Making content predictable is necessary for some users, but may be
considered boring by the design community
• Enables changing the degree of complexity as the user’s skills improve or
decrease over time or context
• Necessary for providing alternative content tailored for the user group’s
needs, such as a simplified version of the text

“Personalization is the automatic
tailoring of sites and messages to
the individuals viewing them, so
that we can feel that somewhere
there's a piece of software that
loves us for who we are.”
David Weinberger
Senior researcher at the Berkman Klein Center

Questions?
Due to questions we received:
Link to the WCAG 2.1 First Public Working Draft sent out for review: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
How to comment, either:
• file an issue in the W3C WCAG 2.1 GitHub repository - https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/new or
• send an email to public-agwg-comments@w3.org

Special thanks to Lisa Seeman and the COGA Task Force
members for their help with the content in this presentation.

AccessU 2017: Bridging the Cognitive Divide with Accessibility Standards

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to AccessU 2017: Bridging the Cognitive Divide with Accessibility Standards

Similar to AccessU 2017: Bridging the Cognitive Divide with Accessibility Standards (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AccessU 2017: Bridging the Cognitive Divide with Accessibility Standards

Editor's Notes