search

w3c / wcag21

Repository used during WCAG 2.1 development. New issues, Technique ideas, and comments should be filed at the WCAG repository at https://github.com/w3c/wcag.
https://w3c.github.io/wcag/21/guidelines/
Other
140 stars 55 forks source link

Support Personalization #6

Closed lseeman closed 7 years ago

lseeman commented 8 years ago

Current versions of SC and Definitions

SC Shortname

Support Personalization (minimum)

SC Text

A version of the content is available such that one of the following is true:

Suggestion for Priority Level

(A)

Related Glossary additions or changes

Contextual information
semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process
Personalization
user interface that is driven by the individual user's preferences
Author settable properties
type of distraction, type of help, type of transaction and type of reminder, instructions and status of an element
critical features
features that are required to complete the main role or tasks of the user interface
important information
information the user may need to complete any action or task including an offline task, or related to safety, risks, privacy, health or opportunities
standardized technique
part of a W3C standard, the standard of the native platform, or a WCAG technique (please note: other success criterion have better definitions for this term)

What Principle and Guideline the SC falls within.

This could fall under:

WCAG 1 Perceivable - Guidline 1.3 Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure

Description

The intent of this success cryteria is to support user preferences or needs of the user. For example, having familiar terms and symbols is key to being able to use the web. However what is familiar for one user may be new for another requiring them to learn new symbols. Personalization could include loading a set of symbols that is appropriate for the specific user, ensuring that all users find the icons simple and familiar.
Technology holds the promise of being extremely flexible and the design of many systems includes the expectation that users will be able to optimise their interaction experience according to their personal preferences or accessibility requirements (needs).

Benefits

This Success Criterion helps users who need extra support or a familure interface. This can include:

We need personalization because:

This helps people with many diffrent cognitive disabilities including people with:

Togther this can effect 11% of school age people and over half of people over 60 years old - including mild cognative imparment an Age-Associate Memory Impairment (AAMI).

Research on these benefits can be found at [cudd-1] and the task forces issue-papers on personalization and preferences. Also see the example of an adaptive page.

An example is a user can be a person growing older whose ability to learn new things has slowed down. This includes learning new interfaces, symbols and designs. They also rely on tool tips. So long as the design is on they know they can use the application and stay in the work force. When the interfaces change, they tryand learn the new interface, but the cognitive load becomes to great and they need to retire. Another example:

"Research has shown that dementia changes a person's perception of distances, objects, and colours. Dementia can reduce or remove the ability to see colours from the blue to purple end of the spectrum. Decorative patterns can 'strobe' and possibly confuse or unsettle people. Even something as simple as a silver strip between different floor coverings in a doorway can appear to a person with dementia like something threatening, such as a step or a hole."

Taken from https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=2591

Related Resources

Resources are for information purposes only, no endorsement implied.

Testability

General test

For HTML and Web Content

  1. Identify the role of elements
  2. Identify the context of regions and controls
  3. Check that the context and role is clear from the markup - if not add the role and context from native HTML, ARIA and COGA (where it is supported)
  4. Ensure content conforms to those standards where they can be used for personlisation or additional support.and set the applicable auther settable properties

Techniques

Techniques include:

The following are common mistakes that are considered failures of Success Criterion 3.1.1 by the WCAG Working Group.

  1. standardized semantics for personalization were appropriate and not used.
  2. standardized platform technique for personalization were appropriate and not used.
lseeman commented 7 years ago

the following wording went to survey: For pages that contains interactive controls or content that is not core, one of the following is true:

-a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content, and enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality, or -core functionality and content, and contextual information for core functionality and content, is programmatically determined.

Note: the main issue was is "core" clear and testable

lseeman commented 7 years ago

new wording that is hopefuly closer is: For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:

.

to discuss on the call today

lseeman commented 7 years ago

the link to the simple demo is https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html

lseeman commented 7 years ago

Hi The link to the simple demo is https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html

I am also forwarding the email from User1st who integrated it into their platform in about 3 hours. Note this was for old wording so it would need to be changed to conform to the current version.

all the best Lisa

---- On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:49:10 +0300 Amihai Mironamihai@user1st.com wrote ---- Hey Lisa, A. Enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality:

A. Go to :http://www.imss.gob.mx/transparencia/normatividad-fp B. Select "asistencia" (help) profile C. an ICON will appears near each download link (this is a customized icon, that a user could have created)

Inline image 1

Please find the script to make this function work: Script: var image = "image url for download"; if($("._u1st_uniqueDownloadHelp").length < $(".glyphicon-download-alt").length) { $(".glyphicon-download-alt").after($("") .setAttr("src", image) .css("margin-left","10px") .css("width","50px") .addClass("_u1st_uniqueDownloadHelp") .setAttr("alt", "download") ); } (Note: The image base 64)

B: a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content:

Hide specific section in help profile

A. Go to http://www.imss.gob.mx/ B. Select "asistencia" (help) profile C. The section on the bottom will disapear

Script: $(".pane-v-imss-numeros").closest(".inside.panels-flexible-row-inside.panels-flexible-row-2-2-inside").hide();

תמונה מוטבעת 1

Summary - The entire process of creating such a script takes 15-60 minutes including testing. Please let me know if that works for you.

Thank you, Amihai

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 3:59 PM, lisa.seeman lisa.seeman@zoho.com wrote: Hi

On Tuesday the WCAG group will debate a proposal for personlization for wcag 2.1. We will have a week and a half to get it though.

the proposal is:

For pages that contains interactive controls or content that is not core, one of the following is true:

a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content, and enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality, or
core functionality and content, and contextual information for essential functionality and content, is programmatically determined.

The proposal is at https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6

Core is defined as: the mimimum functionality and content that is needed for users to identify the topic and fulfill the purpose of the content

For example, core content is generally identified by the page title. Core functionality is that which is needed to fulfill the purpose described by the page title

contextual information is currently defined as : semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process

Supporting semantics is proposed at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/

We need an example to show it as doable / useful including approximations how long it would take for authors to add the semantics.

Thanks for all your help All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

--

Amihai Miron CEO User1st

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

chriscm2006 commented 7 years ago

When considering the software developmental implications of a Success Criterion like this, my thoughts are not, how does this demo that you created work? Or, how were 30 (or 1000) companies able to incorporate this open source project. My thought goes to, how is every website in the world going to do this, on every platform, for every device.

You have shown how thirty websites can implement this. How about a million?

You have a Chrome Extension. What about mobile?

I am browsing the Android Open Source Project Source Code (which includes the Chrome WebView implementation) and I can't find a reference to ANY Coga attributes. This does not bode well for general support for techniques around these properties on Android. I don't have the iOS source code, but I promise the support there is scant as well. This line of thinking leads me to the following two conclusions:

1: Push this out into a pre-mature ecosystem, allowing developers to come up with their own solutions on a website per website basis. Certainly some open source solutions for this would emerge as leaders, but across the broad spectrum of websites and devices there would be MANY MANY different approaches to this. From the point of view of a user, they would be unlikely to run into the same solution for this frequently in their day to day web browsing.

2: Hold off until the ecosystem matures, allow the Coga Specification to stabilize, perhaps consider UAAG guidelines around these thoughts, so that the Success Criterion leads developers to providing contextual information via coga attributes. Browsers then supply the actual customization automatically. Internally, this would be done via javascript injection, but it would be done so with a User Interface that is determined by the Browser, NOT independently, by every website in the world. The benefits of this approach from a user perspective are obvious and significant.

My concern is that, in conclusion 1, what have we really accomplished? Does a world of websites full of widely fractured personalization solutions really achieve the bigger goals of this Success Criterion? In the real world of millions of websites where EVERY site could potentially implement this differently, have we really helped users with cognitive disabilities or have we just required developers to do extra work for nothing?

In conclusion 2 we have embraced the power of a standard and used it to create a much better user experience. It just takes a little longer.

I, personally, would prefer the course of action that slowly leads to the ideal solution, over instant gratification with so many unanswered questions.

lseeman commented 7 years ago

@chriscm2006 Chris - you have joined the conversation late. We have addressed the issue of does it support all platfroms by giving an option to conform of the first bullet point. we have a chicken and egg situation here and we need some type of requirment

mbgower commented 7 years ago

@lseeman, I don't think comments about joining "late" are pertinent. We should anticipate (and encourage) additional people getting engaged as more information is added to 2.1.

@chriscm2006 is providing a similar perspective to concerns that have been raised since January. I don't see the crux of his argument being invalidated by the prescriptive first bullet point.

By the way, the second bullet point ends with "is programmatically determined", which doesn't tie in with the information before it. I'm not sure if you mean that everything needs to be determinable or if this phrase is only referring to the interactive controls. Either way, it needs to be rewritten. Is this what you mean?

contextual information or context sensitive help is programmatically determinable and available for regions, form elements, main navigation elements and interactive controls

lseeman commented 7 years ago

@mbgower we have tried to adress these issues with the new wording and it's itteerations on the list

The first bullet can gives a loop whole in some cases and can be more work then the second bullet in other cases - but it serves two purposes. Firstly it means there is no requirement to add more semantics. The last time this issue was discussed some members felt strongly that we can not expect people to add semantics reliably. So if you can not do it, you can copy and paist a script or have an alternative version. Secondly, every platform will support it. So overall, between the two bullet points it is possible for everyone to conform - even if it is easier to do so in html/xml based languages. Thirdly, even though we have found other supporting techniques, it is easier to do the second bullet point using the coga -semantics. However people are uncomfortable depending on it. SO the first bullet point clarifies to everyone that there is no dependency on coga semantics to conform to the SC.

But in a summary, the point here is to get something in here, and build it up more in the supplement. We are trying to be innovative how we can get something in here on this issue. I am happy to here other directions that address all the comments.

the current wording on the list is For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:

-a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls OR -contextual information is available for regions, common form elements, common navigation elements and common interactive controls is programmatically determined.

We would then specify what is included in common form elements, common navigation elements and common interactive controls in the definitions and make sure we have good supporting techniques for each one. I see the definition of common elements listing some of the values of coga-action, coga-field and coga-destination, so it should be very well defined what you need to include.

chriscm2006 commented 7 years ago

"We need some type of requirement." I would like you to consider rephrasing that: "We need to do something to help." Saying we "Need some type of requirement" precludes the possibility of an even better solution and assumes that this requirement will help and not hurt.

I read through the conversations above, my comments involve a unique point of view and additional concerns that were not addressed, particularly pertaining to the following statements:

If a user can identify and utilize the multitude (seriously, thousands) of personalization solutions that would appear as a result of bullet point 1, then such a user is not in the target group of users this Success Criterion is attempting to serve.

General support for bullet point 2 (contextual information through meta-data) is low enough, such that the inclusion of bullet point one guarantees that bullet point one will be the method programmers use to fulfill this success criterion an OVERWHELMING majority of the time.

This leads me to the following conclusion: Including this success criterion pre-maturely will not drive the industry toward the a solution that is going to serve the users needs. In fact, the inclusion of bullet point 1 ensures that this would NOT be the case.

alastc commented 7 years ago

We have a parallel conversation going on, I made some similar points here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/0011.html

However people are uncomfortable depending on it [the meta-data]. SO the first bullet point clarifies to everyone that there is no dependency on coga semantics to conform to the SC.

The problem is that without coga-personalisation, there is no agreed scope for either bullet. I.e. there is nothing to say which controls should have icons. That means there is no testability. You’d either have to specify them in the SC (a terrible idea) or have an external reference.

But in a summary, the point here is to get something in here, and build it up more in the supplement.

I agree, I have the same goal in mind but I’m trying to steer towards an approach that has worked before in the WCAG/W3C context.

Starting with a core of the most useful meta-data which is the most straightforward to apply would be that first step.

Even with that approach, without some known external technology (user agent) to do something with the meta-data means it will be a struggle. (You didn’t answer that point.)

lseeman commented 7 years ago

Hi, We have tried to address this in the new version. please let me know if it is now suffiently scoped

lseeman commented 7 years ago

ADDED NOTE: This link is an error (wrote while somone was asking me to find it in a call - see EA's answere bellow) @https://openassistive.github.io/OATSoft/2016/06/21/WWAACWebBrowser/ is a symbol browser\

using their concpt codes is a supporting technique

alastc commented 7 years ago

Ok, I think it helps to have consistency through it, I think we can cut down the verbosity though:

Common navigation elements, form elements and interactive controls can be personalised by:

  • a mechanism that enables the user to add symbols OR
  • contextual information that can be programmatically determined.

Also, I followed the link, it goes to a dating site (once you click through to download or for the browser itself).

eadraffan commented 7 years ago

I am afraid the links to download WWAAC Web Browser leads to a dating page. The EU site has also disappeared (www.wwaac.eu) as this browser was developed in 2004 but it may be possible to ask the original developers for the code. http://www.tecnoaccesible.net/en/node/2913

Best wishes

E.A.

johnfoliot commented 7 years ago

Thanks for the update EA, I was wondering what that was all about.

Interesting as it may have been to see, are we to surmise that it was the browser that furnished the symbols, and not the content? Just trying to get this into context.

Thanks!

JF

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:55 AM, eadraffan notifications@github.com wrote:

I am afraid the links to download WWAAC Web Browser leads to a dating page. The EU site has also disappeared ( http://acecentre.org.uk/www. wwaac.eu www.wwaac.eu.) as this browser was developed in 2004 but it may be possible to ask the original developers for the code. < http://www.tecnoaccesible.net/en/node/2913> http://www.tecnoaccesible.net/ en/node/2913

Best wishes

E.A.

From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: 11 July 2017 16:29 To: w3c/wcag21 wcag21@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [w3c/wcag21] Support Personalization (#6)

https://openassistive.github.io/OATSoft/2016/06/21/WWAACWebBrowser/ is a symbol browser

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/ wcag21/issues/6#issuecomment-314481617 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAtX3G2GEn_D0Xv_ DTvKK2EqMIQcNA2xks5sM5TSgaJpZM4J4FN0> . https://github.com/ notifications/beacon/AAtX3Nn8jLRieDIzoD0zmiuzSOXVF_ HBks5sM5TSgaJpZM4J4FN0.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6#issuecomment-314731970, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABK-c75sOmVOnSF2Gn0xSv9BZDOyeZtxks5sNKYegaJpZM4J4FN0 .

-- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

eadraffan commented 7 years ago

Both in the case of WWAAC http://acecentre.org.uk/wwaac but now days it is possible to have a plug in that works with a text editor such as TinyMCE linked to a database of symbols so it works in the same way as a word processor, rather like language translation. See Widgit 'Insite' and the technology behind it - demo provides a separate edit box that creates the symbol supported sentence https://www.widgit.com/products/insite/tinymce/edit.php Widgit have 'Point' as well that allows symbols to appear with hover and kindly provide a technical support page. https://www.widgit.com/support/insite/index.htm

tinymce symbol plugin

lseeman commented 7 years ago

Thanks EA.

lseeman commented 7 years ago

another techneque from John http://microformats.org/wiki/h-event

lseeman commented 7 years ago

huge thread on wcag. with Chris John and myself and jan we have new wording. In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of conventional controls can be consistently, programmatically determined across a set of web pages. (AA)

With new thread on wcag I am changing purpose to function, but we may yet need some more wordsmithing

mraccess77 commented 7 years ago

Another thing I might add to this good list is the default button. Sometimes it’s not clear what the default button is in a form. Often the default button will be triggered by pressing enter – but knowing the default button could also be helpful for people who want to accept the default choice because they are not sure. This might go beyond buttons to other choices as well.

lseeman commented 7 years ago

Also we need to harmonize with https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/forms.html#attr-fe-autocomplete and aria epub module. Both can be ways to conform

mgifford commented 7 years ago

@lseeman there are broken links in the initial comment description. Can you fix the 404's?

KristinaEngland commented 7 years ago

I'm also trying to get to the comment description links, @lseeman. I'm new to submitting comments. Do we need to create a new issue for recommended changes to the September 12 draft or is it fine to add them here?

awkawk commented 7 years ago

@KristinaEngland Please create a new issue for comments on the September 12 draft.