Repository navigation
Support Personalization #6
Description
Current versions of SC and Definitions
- AA SC for viewing | AA SC for editing
- AAA SC for viewing | AAA SC for editing
- conventional user interface component definition for viewing | Conventional names / conventional user interface component definition for editing
- common interactive controls definition for viewing | common interactive controls definition for editing
- common navigation elements definition for viewing | common navigation elements definition for editing
- contextual information definition for viewing | contextual information definition for editing
- AA SC in full draft guideline
- AAA SC in full draft guideline
SC Shortname
Support Personalization (minimum)
SC Text
A version of the content is available such that one of the following is true:
- It serves the same purpose as the original 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 and critical features can be programmatically determined.
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:
- Symbols and graphics that they are familiar with
- Tool tips
- Language they understand
- Less features
- Separating advertisements, so they do not confuse them with native content
- Keyboard short cuts
We need personalization because:
- Different user needs can conflict
- Learning new design patterns (and widgets) can be confusing - we want to allow users to stick with what works for them
- Extra support can be annoying to people who do not need it
- Making content predictable is necessary for accessibility but can often be considered boring design
- Ability to change levels of complexity (increase or decrease) - As people skills improve or decrease over time or context.
- Enable us to really meet the user needs
This helps people with many diffrent cognitive disabilities including people with:
- Language related disabilities
- Memory related disabilities
- Focus and attention related disabilities
- Disabilities that effects executive function and decision making
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.
- Open source project of example script that a web author can use or include that read the user settings in the JSON files and adapt the page for the user needs example script and example of adaptive page
- Issue-papers on personalization and preferences
- Gap analysis Table 7 - Clear and understandable content and text
- User needs Table 6 (less polished but more up-to date version)
- Background research document
- Semantics for adaptive interfaces
Testability
General test
For HTML and Web Content
- Identify the role of elements
- Identify the context of regions and controls
- 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)
- 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:
- Use semantics and standardized techniques to provide extra help (COGA Techniques 4.1).
- Provide semantics that symbols on key content (COGA Techniques 4.2)
- Enable user agents to find the version of the content that best fits their needs.
- Use of aria-invalid and aria-required
- Use of aria epub on document content
- Use of aria landmarks - but with coga context where supported
Common Failures for Success Criterion
The following are common mistakes that are considered failures of Success Criterion 3.1.1 by the WCAG Working Group.
- standardized semantics for personalization were appropriate and not used.
- standardized platform technique for personalization were appropriate and not used.
Activity
[-]support personalization[/-][+]Support Personalization[/+]joshueoconnor commentedon Jan 13, 2017
Assigned to Jan McSorley - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
mbgower commentedon Jan 20, 2017
As a goal, I am all for supporting personalization. As noted here,
But my concerns are also tied up in that same statement; "holding promise" is a difficult future vision to build a current SC upon. My perception is that authors have no existing standardized semantics to cover this that aren't already requirements for other SC. Until such semantics are developed and adopted, it's pretty tough to implement this, especially as a level A requirement.
My gut feeling on this is that in the near term personalization could comprise a series of techniques or methods that can be used to meet more targeted success criteria. That could mean working to create new Personalization scenarios under the Sufficient Techniques section of existing SC. For example, Timing Adjustable could have a new scenario "Where personalization is supported" that outlines what techniques can be used to support adjusting timing on a user preference basis.
Once the ecosystem better supports it (specification in place, adoption of personalization techniques by WCAG and UAAG) then I think we may approach a time when there could be value in a generic Support Personalization SC to catch failures. But we also might find that this need will be best expressed as one or more failure techniques which can be applied to any of those situations where personalization can be used to satisfy other SCs.
lseeman commentedon Jan 23, 2017
Mike we have semantics that are freely available at https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/
we have an open implementation at https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation
Both Pearson and IBM are saying they will be implementing it once it is in a working draft so by the time we get to CR we should have everything
lseeman commentedon Jan 23, 2017
https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
jmcsorle commentedon Jan 24, 2017
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your comment. This SC has been assigned to me to manage. It would be very helpful to learn from you what you think this still needs in order to be moved on to CR. Specifically, I was hoping that you could provide some additional details about the following statement you made: "My gut feeling on this is that in the near term personalization could comprise a series of techniques or methods that can be used to meet more targeted success criteria."
In the education industry and in assessment, personalization is becoming increasingly important and there is a need for the W3C to bring clarity and stability to how to implement this. As more and more instructional and assessment resources are moving to digital and online formats, there are design principles moving through schools and education publishing companies, such as Universal Design for Learning, that are falling short of the kinds of detail needed to truly provide for the personalization needs of students with disabilities. I believe we need to seriously consider how to effectively address the issue of personalization in the next working draft, so I would like to have more dialog about why you and others may think this SC could compromise techniques or methods of other SCs. Could you please provide an example so that I can better understand your concerns? Thanks again for your help!
Thanks!
lseeman commentedon Jan 24, 2017
mbgower commentedon Jan 24, 2017
Adoption of WAI-ARIA would be an example of what I'm discussion. There was no "Support ARIA" SC introduced. Instead, 21 ARIA success techniques have been written and incorporated into existing SCs. They were added to:
That sounds like a good starting list for Personalization techniques in exisiting SCs. There are others, including some 2.1 candidates, which could take advantage of Personalization techniques.
WAI-ARIA 1.0 also serves as an example of adoption time lines. The first public draft came out in 2006. It went through two years of working drafts before a last call. Then another year of drafting before a second last call. I believe between these two last calls is when the first draft WCAG ARIA techniques and the first fledgling browser support appeared. It became a candidate recommendation in 2011, and a proposed recommendation three years after that. An eight year journey, with a progressive adoption of ARIA into browsers, techniques and ATs along the way.
I'd be curious why you don't feel such a model could be used for Personalization, which is likely facing a similar timeline.
lseeman commentedon Jan 24, 2017
61 remaining items
eadraffan commentedon Jul 12, 2017
johnfoliot commentedon Jul 12, 2017
eadraffan commentedon Jul 13, 2017
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
lseeman commentedon Jul 13, 2017
Thanks EA.
lseeman commentedon Jul 19, 2017
another techneque from John http://microformats.org/wiki/h-event
lseeman commentedon Jul 20, 2017
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 commentedon Jul 24, 2017
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 commentedon Jul 24, 2017
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 commentedon Sep 4, 2017
@lseeman there are broken links in the initial comment description. Can you fix the 404's?
KristinaEngland commentedon Sep 15, 2017
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 commentedon Sep 18, 2017
@KristinaEngland Please create a new issue for comments on the September 12 draft.