W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive disabiliti es

From: Jim Tobias <tobias@inclusive.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:53:16 -0500
To: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <LOEHKPOKLGMMFLKDPHADGEGBEHAA.tobias@inclusive.com>
Right.  Plus cognitive impairment is too mushy and diverse a category, since
it includes people with severe, global information processing deficits as
well as people with specific learning disabilities that impair their use of
information in only a single or narrow manner, such as dyslexia.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Scarlett Julian (ED)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:55 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive
> disabiliti es
>
>
> There is
> > very little research into difficulties that people with cognitive
> > disabilities have using the internet. This is reflected in
> > the comparative
> > lack of emphasis that their needs are given in accessibility
> > guidelines.
>
> It may also be because sensory disabilities don't tend to stop people from
> putting their point of view and making people take notice of
> them. By their
> very nature cognitive difficulties make it less likely that someone will
> stick up for their rights or make noises about what they want/need.
>
>
> J.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Newbery [mailto:jamesnewbery@ukconnect.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:24 PM
> > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive
> > disabiliti es
> >
> >
> > First of all, we need to understand exactly what differences in
> > accessibility needs might result in conflicting design
> > priorities. There is
> > very little research into difficulties that people with cognitive
> > disabilities have using the internet. This is reflected in
> > the comparative
> > lack of emphasis that their needs are given in accessibility
> > guidelines.
> > Additionally, as Graham has pointed out, 'cognitive
> > disabilities' cover an
> > enormous range of impairment, so investigations in this area
> > are likely to
> > be lengthy and full of ambiguity.
> >
> > It seems to make common sense that there *are* going to be a number of
> > conflicts. It then becomes that much more important that we
> > understand who
> > our users are, and how they use the web, so that potential
> > conflicts can be
> > resolved on an informed basis.
> >
> > This serves to remind us that accessibility guidelines are
> > good at telling
> > us what design aspects to include, but not at telling us
> > exactly why we are
> > including them. This is largely common sense when it comes to
> > supporting
> > physical and sensory impairments, which are socially
> > 'obvious' and easier
> > for people to comprehend. When it comes to cognitive
> > disabilities, however,
> > design 'common sense' is harder to come by, because judgments
> > must be made
> > about something that people often find difficult to
> > comprehend. For example,
> > I find it harder imagine what it might be like to have
> > learning difficulties
> > than what it might be like to have visual impairment. I
> > personally think
> > that a set of design guidelines are less informative for
> > design (and less
> > interesting) than an understanding of the barriers and
> > facilitators that
> > people face in day to day life.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Scarlett Julian (ED)
> > Sent: 26 February 2002 09:48
> > To: 'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'
> > Subject: RE: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive
> > disabiliti es
> >
> >
> > I seem to have missed out on the previous posts on this subject. The
> > comments in general seem to be what I would call common sense
> > useability
> > issues (note that I recognise that not everyone, and certainly not web
> > designers, has or uses common sense). What interests me more is David
> > Brewer's statement that he can foresee a battle between
> > disability groups on
> > a sensory/cognitive split that will enable "web access issues
> > to be skirted
> > by designers". Putting aside the fact that the majority of
> > designers skirt
> > these issues already, how can we avoid David's perceived battleground
> > becoming yet another get-out clause for web developers? It is
> > obvious that
> > there are very real and different issues for different groups
> > of disabled
> > users - how do we marry them all? Do we even try?
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:35 PM
> > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: Fw: Feedback on accessibility techniques for
> > cognitive disabilities
> >
> >
> >
> > interesting
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Elaina Sitaras
> > To: seeman@netvision.net.il
> > Cc: smb23@cornell.edu
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:23 PM
> > Subject: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive
> > disabilities
> >
> >
> > Lisa,
> >
> > I am very sorry that I did not send this out last week as Susanne had
> > indicated.
> > Attached to this email you should find two documents -- one with the
> > comments and the other with the contact information for those who
> > contributed.
> >
> > Elaina Sitaras
> >
> >
> >
> > X-Sender: smb23@postoffice4.mail.cornell.edu (Unverified)
> > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:04:45 -0500
> > X-PH: V4.1@postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
> > To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
> > From: Susanne Bruyere <smb23@cornell.edu>
> > Subject: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive
> > disabilities
> > Cc: es48@cornell.edu (Elaina Sitaras)
> >
> > Lisa,
> >
> > We have not forgotten you. I sent your guidelines off to our
> > own staff, and
> > also to four colleagues with expertise in cognitive
> > disabilities (traumatic
> > brain injury) and developmental disabilities. We have been
> > waiting to see if
> > anyone else responded to us. Elaina Sitaras, our Research
> > Assistant, is
> > coalescing these responses for us, and will be sending these
> > off to out
> > tomorrow, from whatever feedback we have gotten. She will
> > also be sending
> > the names and contact information for anyone who has
> > responded, in case you
> > want to get back to them with questions. We hope that this will be of
> > assistance.
> >
> > Susanne Bruyere
> >
> >
> > At 06:24 PM 2/13/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > That is fantastic,
> > Thanks
> > The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
> > disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you
> > are not the
> > addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your
> > email software
> > as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any
> > responsibility
> > for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has
> > been transmitted
> > over a public network.  If you suspect that the message may have been
> > intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
> >
> The information in this email is confidential. The contents may
> not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If
> you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply
> facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield
> City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or
> completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a
> public network.  If you suspect that the message may have been
> intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 09:47:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT