Re: Proposed intro for the first editors draft

Agree with all below.  There are a whole slew of "age related degradations of function" in addition to dementia.

Great work.

N

Sent from my iPad

> On 1 Aug 2014, at 21:08, "EA Draffan" <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Thank you John as I was about the say exactly the same – really you have done so much amazing work Lisa – so hard to get the terms acceptable across the board so ‘cognitive disabilities’ seems the best option.  In recent years the term ‘intellectual disabilities’ has also been accepted in Europe and Australia for those with reduced intellectual ability.  http://tinyurl.com/k6cowko 
> 
> Best wishes
> E.A. 
> 
> Mrs E.A. Draffan
> WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
> Tel +44 (0)23 8059 7246
> Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103
> http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk
> http://www.emptech.info 
> 
> From: Rochford, John [mailto:john.rochford@umassmed.edu] 
> Sent: 01 August 2014 18:08
> To: lisa.seeman; public-cognitive-a11y-tf
> Subject: RE: Proposed intro for the first editors draft
> 
> Hi Lisa,
> 
> This is a fine introduction and outline. I appreciate the work put into it.
> 
> Here is my feedback, at least for now:
> • The term “learning disabilities” has different meanings. From a US perspective, it refers to people with, for example, dyslexia or dyscalculia. In the UK, it refers to people with what used to be called “mental retardation”. In the US, the new term is “intellectual disabilities”. I don’t know how other countries / areas of the world refer to people with intellectual disabilities.
> o Suggestion: To lessen confusion, use only the term “cognitive disabilities” without reference to “learning disabilities”.
> • In the section, “Why this draft is important”, dementia is the focus for the aging population. 
> o Suggestion: Perhaps it would be more compelling to make the point that the entire aging population is acquiring cognitive (and physical) disabilities. “Dementia” is a charged term. People don’t think, and don’t want to think, that they will acquire dementia, but they may more-likely accept the point that all of us will acquire cognitive decline as we age. 
> • Have this draft edited to fix typographical and/or grammatical errors.
> o Suggestion: I will do this, if you would like.
> 
> John
> 
> John Rochford
> UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver Center
> Director, INDEX Program
> Instructor, Family Medicine & Community Health
> http://www.DisabilityInfo.org
> Twitter: @ClearHelper
> 
> 
> From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:33 AM
> To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf
> Subject: Proposed intro for the first editors draft
> 
> Folks, I drafted an intro for the first editors draft.  
> Let me know any comments (including if you think it is OK).
> All the best... Lisa
> Introduction
> 
> A gap analysis identifies the gap between where you are now and where you want to be. This document is a gap analysis of the state of accessibility for People with learning disabilities and cognitive disabilities when using the Web and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). We aim to identify and describe the current situation and contrast it to what we want to happen.
> This document will be used as a base document to enable discussion, suggest techniques and create a roadmap for improving accessibility for people with learning disabilities and cognitive disabilities.
> This document is divided into sections. The first section reviews the current situation, in terms of user groups, research, technologies and existing standards. It is currently at is first draft and we are asking for comments. Please let us know if you are aware of omissions.
> The second section will identify gaps between the current situation and the potential for accessibility support. This section is not yet at review stage.
> The third section makes suggestions for improving accessibility for people with learning disabilities and cognitive disabilities, including techniques and proposals for the roadmap, and an outline of what needs to be done. It is currently at is first draft and we invite comments.
>  
> Why this draft is important
> This document is important because enabling people with learning and cognitive disabilities to use the Web and ICT is of critical importance to both the individuals and to society.
> More and more the internet and ICT has become the main way people stay informed and current on news and health information, keep in touch with friends and family, and provides independence, convenient shopping, and other. People who cannot use these interfaces will have an increased feeling of being disabled and alienation from society. 
> Further, with the advent of the Web of Things everyday physical objects are connected to the Internet and have ICT interfaces. Being able to use these interfaces now is an essential component of allowing people to maintain their independence, stay in the work force for longer and stay safe.  
> Consider that the population is aging. By 2050 it is projected there will be 115 million people with dementia worldwide. It is essential to the economy and society that people with mild and moderate levels of dementia stay as active as possible and participate in society for as long as possible. However, at the moment even people with only a mild cognitive decline find may standard applications impossible to use. That means more and more people are dependent on care givers for things that they could do themselves, increasing the crippling cost of care and reducing human dignity.
> We therefore invite you to review this draft, comment and consider how your technologies and work may be effected by these issues.
> Assumptions
> There is a huge number of cognitive disabilities and variations of them. If we attempt an analysis of all the possibilities, the job will be too big and nothing will be achieved. Therefore we are adopting a phased approach, selecting in phase one a limited scope of eight diverse disabilities, and hope to achieve something useful within that scope. Also note that helping users improve skills, and emotional disabilities, are out of scope for phase one. We anticipate this analysis will continue to a second or third phase where more user groups are analyzed and the existing analyses are updated with new research and with new technologies and scenarios. 
>  
> Comments
> This is an early and incomplete draft for review and to help us get comments and early feedback. We are particularly interested in:
> •           Omitted challenges, use cases and issues.
> •           Issues involving your technologies/work and people with learning and cognitive disabilities.
> •           Other omitted research
> We welcome comments and suggestions. Please send comments to … All comments will be reviewed and discussed by the task force. Although we cannot commit to formally responding to all comments on this draft, the discussions can be tracked in the task force minutes.  
>  
>  
> Methodology in User Research
> In making user scenarios and user group research we are taking a multilevel approach. 
> A. Asking the users
> 1. What do they have trouble with? 
> 2. What tasks do they need help with? 
> 3. What tasks they avoid 
> 4. What tasks often lead to mistakes 
> B. Addressing specific topics
> In the user group research section of the gap analysis, we aim to identify abstract principles for accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities, and core challenges for each user group as well as practical techniques. 
> However, when trying to identify abstract principles, it is often helpful to look at concrete user scenarios and challenges that different user group’s face. For that purpose we have identified the practical and diverse user scenarios that should be considered in user group research. These include: 
> Communication Making sure users can communicate with people and be part of society. Tasks to investigate: 
> 1. Use email and chat effectively 
> 2. Being aware of a change 
> 3. Share pictures and information 
> 4. Play 
> 5. Request information 
> Applications 
> 1. Apps to enable work such as document authoring 
> 2. Critical DHTML content and applications such as: enroll and manage healthcare, make an appointment, enroll and manage banking, shop online 
> sign-up / register and manage account profile on a site, book and manage travel 
> 1. Enroll in and participate in online education 
> 2. Apps such as mobile apps 
> 3. Directions / locations 
> ICT systems 
> 1. Use the Web of Things applications such as temperature control, entertainment systems 
> 2. Phone menu systems 
> 3. Other menu systems 
> Research and Education 
> 1. Understand content and learning material 
> 2. Search, research, and find information 
> 3. Enroll in and participate in online education 
> Access to critical information 
> 1. Read and share news 
> 2. Find weather alerts 
> 3. Find and read emergency information 
> 4. Find out rites and social service information 
> C. We also have the following cross cutting concerns
> Using content should be: 
> 1. Safe 
> 2. Effective 
> 3. Minimal frustration 
> Authors
> This document is created by The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force (Cognitive A11Y TF)of the PFWG and the WCAG WG of the W3C. 
>  
> Initial Editor(s) 
>  
> Significant Contributors: User group research modules:
>  
>

Received on Saturday, 2 August 2014 00:34:07 UTC