W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Introduction

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:57:10 -0500
To: <cyns@opendesign.com>, <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004401c0df24$b4d5c8a0$b2176880@trace.wisc.edu>
I would be careful about using "processing impairments".  There are more
cognitive impairments than just processing.  Memory for one.


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Depts of Ind. and Biomed. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu

 -----Original Message-----
PB: My introduction (to WCAG 2.0) can be accessed at
AVR: You may want to fix the following. Please let me know if you disagree -
1.2: "cognitive impairments" is too narrow. I suggest "processing
impairments", so that attention deficits are included.
PB: I understand what you're saying, but I wonder if there isn't a more
understandable way of saying it. "Mental processing impairment" maybe?
"Cognitive processing impairments"? And, to my way of thinking, although I'm
sure others would disagree, attention deficits can be included under the
term "cognitive", even without the word "processing." The act of processing
information is a cognitive act, isn't it? Even if the word "cognitive" seems
slanted away from attention deficits, I think that the word "processing"
slants too far towards it and away from other types.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 19:00:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC