RE: What term to use

I agree with just 'cognitive disabilities' too.


Best regards,
                                                                                            
                                                                         HA&AC Logo         
                                                                                            
   Mary Jo Mueller                                                                          
   IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager, Human Ability &                             
   Accessibility Center                                                                     
                                                                                            
                                                                                            
                                                                                            
   Phone: 1-512-286-9698 | Tie-Line: 363-9698                                               
   E-mail: maryjom@us.ibm.com                                                               
   HA&AC Able Website: w3.ibm.com/able                                                      
   Follow the Human Ability and Accessibility Center on:       and                          
   within IBM on:                                                                           
                                                                                            



“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader.”  ~ John Quincy Adams



From: "Deborah Dahl" <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
To: "'Boland Jr, Frederick E.'" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>,
            "'Rochford, John'" <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
Cc: "'lisa.seeman'" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>,
            "'public-cognitive-a11y-tf'" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Date: 08/04/2014 07:45 AM
Subject: 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
      LinkedIn, Twitter




      ---- 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
       (Cognitive A11Y TF)of the PFWG and the WCAG WGof the W3C.





       Initial Editor(s)





       Significant Contributors: User group research modules: