RE: Off Survey - multi-impairments (co-morbidity) in functional vision

Not that I think we should do the same, but, I just want to point out that the WCAG Cognitive Task Force specifically decided NOT to address co-morbidity. 

 

However, to me, multi-impairments (co-morbidity) in functional vision DOES makes sense because the breadth of Low Vision disabilities, though very broad, is still not as broad as cognitive disabilities IMHO.

 

​​​​​

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545

 

From: Wayne Dick [mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:22 PM
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Off Survey

 

I appreciate that Shawn mentioned multi-impairments in functional vision, but it is not prominent enough. The reason I propose combined impairments as an impairment in its own right is because actual diseases and conditions rarely include just one, and, most important, multiple impairments dramatically change the treatment required. Historically we have thought in terms of single impairment fixes, but as we know the obvious fix can do harm if another impairment has contradictory requirements. We probably don't have 2**5-6=26 cases, but there are probably a lot of combinations. These are the primary reasons for a flexible access for low vision. It can just happen in so many ways.

 

​I do think the requirements is really a good start.

Wayne​

 


 

 

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org <mailto:shawn@w3.org> > wrote:

Good points,Wayne. Replies below.

On 1/21/2016 12:19 PM, Wayne Dick wrote:

I have some edits that I consider important:
1) The writers of the functional limits sections should write the abbreviated versions. It won't be hard to cut them down to 1 or 2 paragraphs.


In the /TR/ document, I think we want to keep these to one paragraph that is a simple definition - and then put the more detailed info in a separate page, per the 20 Jan teleconference.

For the draft /TR/ doc, anyone can submit a pull request, or send the HTML to Jim, Andrew, or Shawn to incorporate into the draft on GitHub.

A placeholder for links to the more detailed info for Light Sensitivity, Contrast Sensitivity, and Color Vision and is at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/users/low-vision#specific>

2) We should note that the visual impairments we explore are the ones we deem important to the web.


Good point. There are some that we're not covering because they don't directly effect users needs for user interfaces. <http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements#visual-impairments> now says "This section briefly introduces five categories of visual impairment that impact web use..."

2. One category of visual impairment should Multi-Impairment. Multi-impairments need more complex access than impairments occurring singularly.


<http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements#functional-vision> Starts out: "Many people with low vision have multiple visual impairments, for example, they have poor visual acuity, high light sensitivity, low contrast sensitivity, and visual field impairments." I think we should say a little more about it here.

3. There are actually three levels of text recognition: visible: The smallest line you can read on the eye chart. Legible: text that enable reading streams of words as rapidly as possible and with minimal error. Readable: text that enables comprehension of large bodies of text, including book length documents.

The distinction between visible and legible is significant and cannot be lost. Text in the smallest line you can read in the eye chart is not legible to you. You will read words slowly and make a lot of mistakes.  Visibility and legibility are matters of perception (P in WCAG 2). Items 1.3 and 1.4 assist legibility.

Readability is about "operating" bodies of text. You can skim text for the gist. You can read carefully for the deep meaning. Even though reading is passive it is still an operation. It is the point where multi-impairment come into play. If we decide to optimize to the smallest legible font size, we are forced to have a bright interface. This may not be conducive to the long reading sessions necessary for comprehension of the assigned block of text.


I think we want a whole page explaining this -- to be linked from <https://www.w3.org/WAI/users/low-vision/>

My 2 cents. :-)

~Shawn



Wayne