RE: What term to use

I agree with just "cognitive disabilities".

 

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. [mailto:frederick.boland@nist.gov] 
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 6:38 AM
To: Rochford, John
Cc: lisa.seeman; public-cognitive-a11y-tf
Subject: Re: What term to use

 

I agree thanks and best wishes Tim Boland

Sent from my iPad


On Aug 3, 2014, at 10:18 AM, "Rochford, John" <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
wrote:

I vote for "cognitive disabilities". I think it is the simplest and clearest
term to use. It also avoids the significantly-differing definitions of
"learning disabilities".

 

No matter which term we choose, some people will be uncomfortable with it.

 

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 3:47 AM
To: Rochford, John
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf
Subject: What term to use

 

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.

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
<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: