Clear structure and relationships

[lseeman]

Current versions of SC and Definitions

• SC for viewing | SC for editing

• SC in full draft guideline

  SC Shortname:Clear structure and relationships

  SC Text

  Clear structure and relationships: Information, structure, and relationships, conveyed through presentation, provide for a clear and unambiguous identification of relationships between elements, and for the separation of different sections of content.

  Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function.

  Suggestion for Priority Level (A/AA/AAA)

  AA or A

  Related Glossary additions or changes

  What Principle and Guideline the SC falls within.

  We suggest a new guideline under principle 3 "Provide a clear structure and layout"

  Description and Benefits

  This success criterion is part of the need to provide a clear layout that people with different disabilities will know how to use. Many users may experiment with different layouts and structures until they work out how to use them. However, people with cognitive disabilities may not be able to do so, and thus will be unable to use content or an application.

  For example, consider the difficulty in determining which scroll bar to use if there are more than one embedded in scrollable regions. When users try the wrong scroll bar, they do not get the effect they desire. Many users will look again at the content; try and work out what they are supposed to do; and discover the correct scroll bar. However, many people with cognitive disabilities will not be able to work out what they did incorrectly. Others will feel cognitive overload, and will give up before they try. They may assume the application is broken, or that it is just too complicated for them. For all of these users, the application will not be usable.

  In another example, chunks of content run into each other with a "flat design". Whereas some users can work out which chunks belong together, many users with cognitive disabilities will find it challenging or impossible. Thus, all the benefits of chunking content are lost.

  Who it helps

  This supports people with intellectual disabilities, and those who have any type of Aphasia, specific learning difficulties, as well as those with general cognitive learning disabilities. This also supports those who have Dementia, and/or who acquire cognitive disabilities as they age.

  See also:

  https://www.mencap.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2008-04/make%20it%20clear%20apr09.pdf

  The Aphasia Alliance's Top Tips for 'Aphasia Friendlier' Communication taken from http://www.buryspeakeasy.org.uk/documents/Aphasia%20Alliance%20Aphasia%20Friendier%20Communication.pdf

  Phiriyapkanon. Is a big button interface enough for elderly users? P34, Malardardalen University Press Sweden 2011.

  Toepoel, V., Das, M. and van Soest, A. 2006. Design of web questionnaires: The effect of layout in rating scales, Tilberg, , The Netherlands: Tilburg University. (Discussion Paper No. 2006‐30, CentERdta) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vera_Toepoel/publication/4784408_Design_of_Web_Questionnaires_The_Effect_of_Layout_in_Rating_Scales/links/0deec520de9f388043000000.pdf (accessed 5th june, 2015)

  Hartley, J. and Betts, L. 2010. Four layouts and a finding: the effects of changes in the order of the verbal labels and the numerical values on Likert‐type scale scores. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13: 17-27

  .

  You can find more evidence in the links below, including the COGA Techniques and Background research document. Feel free to add more!

  Related Resources From COGA

  • User needs table (see table 5)
  • Background research document
  • Semantics for adaptive interfaces
  • Also look at COGA Techniques

  Testability

  Part 1

  1. Look at the content. Are there controls that act only on one section of the content? If no, go to Part 2.
  2. Are they separated using a known technique OR are unambiguous via user testing (user testing of at least 5 users with cognative disabilities in the primary modality of the content) (Note: it also needs to be programmability determinable for 1.3.1.)

  (pass outcome:

  • no to item 1 and yes to item 2 OR
  • yes to item 2)

  Part 2

  1. Look at the content. Identify different regions, including paragraphs and areas with a different function, such as call out boxes, navigation bars, and advertisements.
  2. Determine if they are separated using a known technique or, via user testing of at least 5 users (in the primary modality of the content), if they are unambiguous.

  (pass: yes to item 2)

  Techniques

  • Paragraphs are clearly separated (e.g., by white space in text or by a pause in speech content).
  • Sub-menu items are clearly associated with the main menu items under which they fall.
  • Search boxes or tool bars are clearly associated with the contents they will search.
  • Scroll bars and their content areas are clearly associated, and cannot be confused.

  Failures

  • When scroll bars are embedded in scrollable regions, and it is unclear which scroll bar to use.
  • The search box relates to one area of a page, and not for another region. It is unclear which region the search is for.
  • Controls act on one region of a view. It is not clear which areas are acted on. Out of 5 users (including 60+ and people with learning disabilities), not all understand the relationships immediately.
  • Paragraphs and call out boxes are not separated with white space or lines.

  <h2> working groups notes (optional)</h2>

[joshueoconnor]

@jim-work Is there a PR ready to go for this?

[jim-work]

In the Testability section: Part 1 isn't clear. There is no way that you can answer "no" to the first item and then "yes" to the second item. Answering "no" will bypass the second item. Should the pass outcome be "yes to item 2" for both parts?

In the Techniques Section: I do not understand "Out of 5 users (including 60+ and people with learning disabilities), not all understand the relationships immediately."

[mbgower]

Given the fact Resize Content includes a provision on disallowing 2-dimensional scrolling, the examples in here really need to be redone, since they dwell significantly on challenges with 2-dimensional scrolling.

I also feel other LVTF features seem to entirely encompass provisions that achieve what is being sought here.

I have a bunch of prior comments with which I can populate this SC, but my sense is that this SC is largely redundant.

[lseeman]

@mbgower Hi mike, Can you let me know exactly what overlap there is with LVTF ? what can we remove here that is fully covered? Do not worry about the description and blurb. It is not what we are voting on now (and we can't edit it anyway) Point taken though.