CSUN 2017: Building WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria for People with Cognitive Disabilities

© Copyright IBM Corporation 2017
Building WCAG 2.1 Success
Criteria for People with
Cognitive Disabilities
March 2, 2017
Lisa Seeman, Mary Jo Mueller

Lisa Seeman
COGA Task Force Facilitator
lseeman@us.ibm.com
@seemanlisa
Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager
maryjom@us.ibm.com
@1mjmueller

Content
• Cognitive disabilities & statistics
• COGA task force, research, roadmap and other activities
• Success Criteria in WCAG 2.1 first draft
• Addressing success criteria requirements
• Next steps
Knowledge of accessibility
Understand cognitive issues
Know what is coming for
cognitive web accessibility
standards

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)

Statistics
Largest disability group: people with cognitive disabilities
• School aged learning and cognitively disabled: 6.3 - 11%
• In contrast - declared disabilities are 0.4%
• Aging
• Common for +65’s to have mild cognitive impairment
• By 2030, +65’s in the US will be 19% - more than double 2000
• By 2050
• 115 million people with dementia worldwide
• Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain: +65’s will be approx. a third or over
• Anxiety or depression at some point: 18%

Day-to-day impact
Meanwhile…
Many systems have become increasingly complex
• Web applications
• TV interfaces, heating
• Phone systems

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

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/

User needs
User Needs *
WCAG
Proposed
Success Criteria
*
Authoring
Techniques*
Proposed New
Semantics *
Personalization*
Operating
System/Other *
I need a method
of secure
website
authentication
that I find easy
to use.
(Assume I have
cognitive and
memory
impairments.)
more
Accessible
authentication
Level A
--------
To add
Does this
support symbol
users?
Minimize the
cognitive skills
required to use
the content - the
examples in
security.
(§ link)
Techniques
should include
how to have
security, which
does use
passwords or
copying, such as
biometrics and
tokens.
None
We need to
capture the type
of security that
this user can
employ. And
(maybe) if they
require the use
of an API (such
as password
storage).
Hardware and
operating
systems could
provide
authentication
to websites and
applications -
(Needs further
investigation
and risk
analysis.)
Encourage
a standardized
third party sign
in, which is
exclusively for
authentication,
and helps users
log-in anywhere.

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

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

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…
• Describes conditions to meet the criteria, but not the method
• Is not easy to misinterpret
• Is testable
• Is technology agnostic
• Is widely adoptable
• 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
• 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
for next draft
(total 39)
See https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html

1.3.4 Support Personalization (minimum) (Level A) -
Proposed
Contextual information and author settable properties of
regions, critical features and important information are
programmatically determinable so that personalization is
available.
Exception: Information does not need to be exposed
when there is not a standardized technique of exposing
it in the technology or the platform.

2.2.6 Timeouts (Level A) - Proposed
Where content can time out, the content must also conform to all of
the below:
Loss of data The user can easily return to the same point in a task, without
data loss, for a period of at least one week as the default, or via a user-settable
option available throughout the task. If the data will only be preserved for a
limited time, the user is informed of the length of time that data are preserved
at the start of the task.
Timing adjustable The function to turn off, adjust, or extend timing is
controlled by a simple action, and is labeled with simple, understandable
language.
Aware The user is informed of timeout limits at the start of the task, including
the length of the warning.

3.1.7 Plain language (Minimum) (Level A) - Proposed
Provide clear and simple language in instructions, labels, navigational elements, and error
messages which require a response to continue, so that all of the following are true:
Simple tense Use present tense and active voice.
Simple, clear, and common words Use the most common 1500 words or phrases or,
provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form to refer to the
concept in the identified context.
Double negatives Double negatives are not used.
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.
Instructions Each step in instructions is identified.
With lots of exceptions…

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.

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
Common input errors are automatically corrected where
the corrections can be reliably made.

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
complex information, long documents, numerical
information, relative and cardinal directions, forms and
non-standard controls.

A new WCAG success criteria…
• Describes conditions to meet the criteria, but not the method
• Is not easy to misinterpret
• Is testable
• Is technology agnostic
• Is widely adoptable
• Has methods/tools to implement it
…and more!
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria

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

Example: Plain Language (minimum)
3.1.7 Plain language (minimum): Provide clear and simple language in
instructions, labels, navigational elements, and error messages which require
a response to continue, so that all of the following are true: (Level A)
• Simple tense: Use present tense and active voice.
• Simple, clear, and common words: Use the most common 1500 words or
phrases or, provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-
common form to refer to the concept in the identified context.
• Double negatives: Double negatives are not used.
• 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.
• Instructions: Each step in instructions is identified.

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

Success Criterion text - Scope
Provide clear and simple language in instructions,
labels, navigational elements, and error messages,
which require a response to continue, so that all of the
following are true:

Success criterion text – Specific, testable requirements
• Simple tense: Use present tense and active voice.
• Simple, clear, and common words: Use the most common 1500 words or
phrases or, provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-
common form to refer to the concept in the identified context.
• Double negatives: Double negatives are not used.
• 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.
• Instructions: Each step in instructions is identified.

Success Criterion text - Exceptions
• If there are no tools available in the language of the content that identify uncommon words,
instructions that are longer than 400 words are exempt unless they directly relate to a critical service.
• When a passive voice or a tense (other than present tense) is clearer. Other voices or tenses may be
used when it has been shown, via user testing, to be easier to understand, friendlier, or appropriate.
• In languages where present tense and active voice do not exist, or are not clearer in the language of
the content, use the tense and the voice that are clearest for the content.
• When describing or discussing past or future events, the present tense is not required.
• 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.
• Where less-common words are found to be easier to understand for the audience. Such findings are
supported by user testing that includes users with cognitive disabilities.
• The writing-style items may be replaced for a location or a type of content in which user testing has
shown a more-effective writing style to aid comprehension for people with cognitive disabilities.
Example: content written in a specific natural language.
• The content will be penalized for not conforming to a given writing style (such as a CV, dissertation, or
Ph.D. proposal).

A few words about wording
Simple, clear, and common words: Use the most common
1500 words or phrases or, provide words, phrases or
abbreviations that are the are most-common form to refer to
the concept in the current context.
• You can use the common way to refer to a concept in this context. So the
medical terms would be fine if they qualify. We are anticipating the tools that
will be able to generate the word list
• You can use what ever words you want and put the simple language in the
title, or the coga-easylang etc. An easy to access glossary could also be an
acceptable technique.

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 computing summary 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)

Thank you!
Other IBM sessions at CSUN
Day/Time Topic Presenters Location
Thursday
3:20 PM
A Product Manager’s Perspective on Accessibility: An
IBM Case Study
Sheila Zinck
Moe Kraft
Mary Jo Mueller
Gaslamp AB
2nd Floor
Seaport tower
Friday
10:00 AM
Outthink Aging: New Technologies and Solutions for an
Aging Society
Sheila Zinck
Stephen Ewell (CTA
Foundation)
Hillcrest CD
3rd Floor
Seaport Tower
Friday
1:20 PM
ACT Now: Accessibility Conformance Testing for WCAG
Mary Jo Mueller
Wilco Fiers (Deque)
Torrey Hills AB
3rd Floor
Seaport Tower
Friday
1:20 PM
Accessibility in the DevOps Era Tom Brunet
Old Town AB
2nd Floor
Seaport Tower
Friday
3:30 PM
Open Accessibility: Delivering at Speed and Scale Moe Kraft
Cortez Hill C
3rd Floor
Seaport Tower

CSUN 2017: Building WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria for People with Cognitive Disabilities

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CSUN 2017: Building WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria for People with Cognitive Disabilities

Similar to CSUN 2017: Building WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria for People with Cognitive Disabilities (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CSUN 2017: Building WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria for People with Cognitive Disabilities

Editor's Notes