next version of the introduction

Hi. Please find bellow a new version taking into account everyone's comments. I put Kate's discussion on terminology in the assumptions section. It is close to the start of the document but does not distract from the core introduction. I hope that s OK.

Please review and feel free to comment some more :)

All the best

Lisa 

 Introduction
 V4
 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 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 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 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 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. It is essential to the economy and society that people with mild and moderate levels of cognitive decline 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. 
 Terminology. Various terms have been applied, such as cognitive disabilities, intellectual disabilities,  learning disabilities, and more. Although sometimes used interchangeably, these terms are finely nuanced and do not strictly cover the same sets. Adding further complications is how these terms differ by geographical context. One notable example is the term learning disability. In the United States, learning disabilities refer to disabilities that affect specific cognitive tasks associated with education such as dyslexia (reading) and dyscalculia (mathematical reasoning). In Britain, however, learning disabilities refer to conditions that impact intelligence more generally (and often more severely), such as autism and Down syndrome. 
 
 Given that describing and addressing these complexities around terminology is a monumental task in itself, this working group has opted to use cognitive disability as the primary term in the scope of our work. By this, we define a cognitive disability to be a condition that impacts one or more cognitive functions. Cognitive functions include both low-level (i.e., attention, reasoning, memory) and higher-level processes (i.e., reading, writing, organization). 
 
 Importantly, we greatly recognize and respect the many opinions, issues, politics, and debates involving disability terms and labels. Our choice in terminology is not meant to indicate any allegiance or preference but solely to help us focus on our main task of addressing web and ICT 
 accessibility issues for users with this under-looked family of disabilities. Additionally, we recognize and anticipate that changes to our terminology may be necessary in future dissemination of our findings and recommendations. For now, we will use our simplified terminology and address such issues as they arise. 
 
 
 Cognitive disabilities encompass a wide set of conditions that affect various aspects of thinking and reasoning.
  
  
 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 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
 What do they have trouble with? 
What tasks do they need help with? 
What tasks they avoid 
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 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: 
 Use email and chat effectively 
Being aware of a change 
Share pictures and information 
Play 
Request information 
 Applications 
 Apps to enable work such as document authoring 
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 
 Enroll in and participate in online education 
Apps such as mobile apps 
Directions / locations 
 ICT systems 
 Use the Web of Things applications such as temperature control, entertainment systems 
Phone menu systems 
Other menu systems 
 Research and Education 
 Understand content and learning material 
Search, research, and find information 
Enroll in and participate in online education 
 Access to critical information 
 Read and share news 
Find weather alerts 
Find and read emergency information 
Find out rites and social service information 
 C. We also have the following cross cutting concerns
 Using content should be: 
 Safe 
Effective 
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:
  
 



---- On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:38:19 +0300 Katherine Deibel <katherine.deibel@gmail.com> wrote ---- 


I've been thinking about this since John made his comment about learning 
disabilities meaning radically different things (thank you, John, as 
something was sticking out at me as being problematic). I agree that 
cognitive disabilities is the best term, but in making that decision, we 
need to provide the reader some idea of what we mean by that. I've had 
to do this before in my papers, so I've given it a stab below. 
 
----------------- 
 
Before diving into the document itself, we briefly want to discuss one 
of the challenges involved in working on accessibility issues 
surrounding cognitive disabilities---the terminology. Various terms have 
been applied, such as cognitive disabilities, intellectual disabilities, 
learning disabilities, and more. Although sometimes used 
interchangeably, these terms are finely nuanced and do not strictly 
cover the same sets. Adding further complications is how these terms 
differ by geographical context. One notable example is the term learning 
disability. In the United States, learning disabilities refer to 
disabilities that affect specific cognitive tasks associated with 
education such as dyslexia (reading) and dyscalculia (mathematical 
reasoning). In Britain, however, learning disabilities refer to 
conditions that impact intelligence more generally (and often more 
severely), such as autism and Down syndrome. 
 
Given that describing and addressing these complexities around 
terminology is a monumental task in itself, this working group has opted 
to use cognitive disability as the primary term in the scope of our 
work. By this, we define a cognitive disability to be a condition that 
impacts one or more cognitive functions. Cognitive functions include 
both low-level (i.e., attention, reasoning, memory) and higher-level 
processes (i.e., reading, writing, organization). 
 
Importantly, we greatly recognize and respect the many opinions, issues, 
politics, and debates involving disability terms and labels. Our choice 
in terminology is not meant to indicate any allegiance or preference but 
solely to help us focus on our main task of addressing web and ICT 
accessibility issues for users with this underlooked family of 
disabilities. Additionally, we recognize and anticipate that changes to 
our terminology may be necessary in future dissemination of our findings 
and recommendations. For now, we will use our simplified terminology and 
address such issues as they arise. 
 
 
Cognitive disabilities encompass a wide set of conditions that affect 
various aspects of thinking and reasoning. 
 
 
 
Kate Deibel, PhD 
 
URL: http://staff.washington.edu/deibel 
 
-- 
 
"To make a difference, one must subtract one number from another." 
 
On 2014-08-03 12:47 AM, lisa.seeman wrote: 
> The way I see it we have 3 terms on the table. 
> 
> 1. cognitive and learning disabilities 
> 2. cognitive disabilities 
> 3. intellectual disabilities 
> 
> please vote on the term you would like us to use - for the scope of the 
> gap analysis only 
> 
> Personally I vote number 1, as some people with minor learning 
> disabilities do not like to think of themselves as having a cognitive or 
> intellectual disability. 
> 
> Also I know the term " intellectual disabilities" is in right now but I 
> suspect it is a matter of time before people start to find it offensive. 
> 
> For example I am heavily dyslexic but also am also on the intellectual 
> side. Just for some light relief, I recently learned (the hard way) 
> not to go on about interpretations of Gaussian curves in research on a 
> first date. I definitely have a cognitive disability, but if I am 
> intellectually disabled I wonder what is the appropriate term for people 
> who find Gaussian curves boring... 
> 
> All the best 
> 
> Lisa Seeman 
> 
> Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
> <http://accessibility.athena-ict.com/default.shtml> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:08:25 +0300 
> *Rochford<john.rochford@umassmed.edu>* wrote ---- 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> oSuggestion: 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. 
> 
> oSuggestion: 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. 
> 
> oSuggestion: 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 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/> (Cognitive A11Y TF)of 
> the PFWG <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/> and the WCAG WG 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Overview.html>of the W3C <http://www.w3.org>. 
> 
> Initial Editor(s) 
> 
> Significant Contributors: User group research modules: 
> 
>