Per last time, we’re going to assume the information to be processed is getting to the user’s perceptions as I’m trying to organize my thoughts on cognitive processes andwhat disabilities can affect each step. From there, maybe we can figure out what disabilities are supported in the existing tools and what could use some attention.
The other parts of this… essay series(?) can be found here:
Thinking about Thinking, an introduction
I’ll also note that, again, I’m not an expert in cognitive processes or related disabilities. I’m trolling research journals and current practices I can find online to put ideas together.
Side note - there’s a lot wrong with how ADHD is diagnosed, especially in kids and especially in women. Presentations of ADHD may not be “classic” depending on how they’ve been socialized. As someone who firmly ascribes to the social model of disability, the “maladaptive symptoms” relate to expectations and systems designed without considering ADHD-related behaviors.
Inattention appears as struggling to maintain focus on tasks that are not stimulating/rewarding, easy distraction from what is being focused, “forgetful.” The “forgetful” one is maybe referring more to the “I put something down where it doesn’t typically go and don’t know where it is.”
Forgetfulness is part of the attention and processing issue - if a person is not mindful of, say, where they are placing something when placing it in an atypical place, that new place doesn’t make it into short term memory and won’t make it into long-term storage. Attending to something like that requires active processing to “commit” it to memory.
So if you have trouble attending to something that breaks the circuit. How do we support users with attention issues?
Much of good usability and accessibility design principles help with attention.
https://lawsofux.com/millers-law/
The average person can hold 7±2 (which I think modern research actually places the baseline at 4±2 now) items in memory at a given time. The more we fill slots in active metal processing, the easier to lose items. When you lose information, like say the original goal upi had when launching a website, attention is more likely to wander. Spending more active cycles attending to information exhausts a user’s stores.
Simplify an interface so folks don’t need to try and manage too may things in order to progress. Reduce cognitive load.
https://lawsofux.com/fittss-law/
I think this one is not obvious but making target items easier to find AND traverse to supports attention. Less time searching for a button AND less time to GET to said button reduces the opportunity for attention to wander. This is especially true if a page has multiple possible targets that could interest users - either intentionally because they’d WANT to click a thing or unintentionally because it is related to the desired action, even if it isn’t the actual desired action.
Highly visible, well organized interface components that reduce time to search and click all keep users focused on the task at hand.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
Numerous WCAG criteria intend to support cognitive accessibility and the WAI Continues to research. I highly recommend reading the WAI’s Cognitive Accessibility Guidance document.
1.4.1 - Use of Color - use more than color to identify elements, especially important ones, on an interface. Spending less time trying to find something means less opportunity for attention to wander.
1.4.2 & 1.4.7 - Audio Control/Low or No Audio - DON”T AUTO PLAY ANYTHING. good lord, that shouldn’t need to be said. Any unexpected audio or video are a distraction for even the most iron-focused people. I don’t think I know a user that won’t take time to turn off something autoplaying and that effort could break everything they were trying to do. If you do this, you should feel bad.
1.4.3 & 1.4.6 - Contrast - anything to make elements easier to perceive makes attending to it simpler. Both in the very real “I can actually perceive it. Full stop.” And “I can find it again when I need to again. Contrast makes elements distinct both from the fields in which they reside but also compared to adjacent things.
1.4.13 - Content on Hover or Focus - any content that appears on mouse over if keyvoard focus remains visible until the user advances away from it. I think this was originally intended to help folks with motor disabilities but there’s an obvious benefit for attention in that it supports users ability to attend to that content by… letting it persist.
2.2.2 - Pause, Stop, Hide - Any motion must be user stoppable. (Or how about you just don’t?). Remember blinking text? No? Good.
2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.6 - Timing - don’t require timing where it isn’t necessary to the specific action. At a minimum, the stress knowing something is going to vanish (or worse, not realizing something will vanish) is a distraction. If I’m thinking about how much time I have left, I’m not finishing the task I’m trying to task.
2.4.3, 2.4.7, 2.4.11, 2.4.12, 2.4.13 - Focus - Focus should be consistent, easy to see, and logically sequential. Focus serves as a literal guide for attention for users when navigating. The more prominent (see contrast, color, and similar above) and easy to find, the better.
All of 3.2 - Predictable - it is critical, critical, critical to NOT SURPRISE USERS with actions they didn’t expressly trigger. We think we are helping by, say, exposing elements as a user scrolls but it can distract if not done in obvious ways. Progressive disclosure as a design concept is useful until desigers try to make decisions for users they didn’t actually make. Any time an interface does something unexpected, it breaks attention by introducing a change in the environment.
All of 3.3 - Input Assistance - help users do the right things. And don’t make them do the SAME thing over and over. When you have to re-enter the same thing, it is fatiguing to focus and reduces trust that the system is working. Less trust, less ability adn desire to accomplish the task.
I think my primary takeaway is that design patterns and criteria in conjunction support aspects of attention. It is, of course, not like you can pick one thing and call it done. But taking these concepts together and putting them into larger patterns is necessary but not sufficient. I say it often, adn will continue to do so, that one size fits one. You can solve for one person but that won’t work for the next 100% of the time. But it can sure as hell inform up if approach and make you better at designing for actual people.
Which feels real obvious when you look at all of the above. Sometimes you have to organize the obvious information too?
Published on August 23, 2024 – Attention – Design – Cognition