RE: user research module

Thanks John for your comments
Some quick responses
 
1. We need to talk about Web Technologies and not ICT, as ICT is out of our mandate.
2. We resolved to include LD in our description  - see http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page. let me know if you want to revisit this discussion but first we should check the original discussion if we want to reopen it
3. I think a source was given, if not I will find it
4. Not sure what is meant here.
5. Agreed
6. Not sure about the advantage. Maybe we could put it in categories. 
7. True, this is a long document....But it is a background document, and the length is why we have separated it form the gap analysis. I am not sure there is an advantage in braking it down further.


All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:27:10 +0200  Rochford<john.rochford@umassmed.edu> wrote ---- 

  Hi Lisa,
  
 Here is my feedback about the draft of the user-research module. My focus is on the content. If my focus was on copyediting, I would have a lot more comments.
  
  1)       Throughout the document, there are references to “… people with learning disabilities and cognitive disabilities …”. Learning disabilities are a subset of cognitive disabilities.
  ·     Suggestion: use simply “cognitive disabilities”.
  2)       The abstract and the beginning of the introduction indicate we are addressing “Web technologies”. Section 1.1, “Importance of This Document”, references “the Web and ICT”, “the Internet and ICT”, the “Web of Things”, and “standard applications”. 
  ·     Suggestion: explain that “Web Technologies” is meant as a generic term that includes the technologies of the Internet, ICT, and the Web of Things. *OR*
  ·     Suggestion: use the term “Information and Communications Technology (ICT) because it is all-encompassing. *OR*
  ·     Suggestion: address only “Web Technologies” throughout the document. As Michael has pointed out, web technologies should be our focus.  
  3)       There is no reference for section 1.1’s statement that “By 2050 it is projected there will be 115 million people with dementia worldwide.”
  ·     Suggestion: Add a footnote that contains the reference.
  4)       In section 2, “Summary of User Groups and Cognitive Function”, the example “Understanding Social Cues” is provided for “Behavioral”. A behavior is an observable, measurable action. Understanding cannot be observed or measured. Only actions that indicate understanding can be.
  ·     Suggestion: List an observable, measurable action for “Behavioral”.
  ·     Note: I may be misunderstanding your use of “Behavioral” and/or “Behavioral Abstraction”.
  5)       In section 2, there is a reference to “a dyslexic”. People in the U.S. consider such references to be insulting.
  ·     Use people-first language, such as “a person with dyslexia”.
  6)       In section 3.1.7, “Specific Technologies”, the assistive-technology examples listed are of commercial products. 
  ·     Suggestion: Instead, list assistive technologies generically, such as “text-to-speech”, “speech recognition”, etc..
  7)       This document is overwhelmingly-long. My guess is that, as a result, few people will read it in its entirety. Michael has made the same point.
  ·     Suggestion: Divide the document into linked, short documents.
  
 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: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:34 AM
 To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf
 Cc: Michael Cooper
 Subject: user research module
 
 
 
 
  
 Hi folks
 
 We have a draft of the user research module
 
 see https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/coga-gap-analysis-2014-fpwd/coga/user-research.html
 
 The ADD section needs updating (which I will coordinate with Michael over). Also I just noted that the aphasia and non vocal sections are out of date and not merged.  However the other sections are ready for proofreading and other comments.
 
 Some major changes
   I changed the introduction to make it in line with the user research publication
 I added a summary with the cognitive function table. Please check this section and make sure you agree with the summary
 I added the cognitive research section from the Athena-ICT website.
 The document is also restructured a bit. For example Cognitive research and methodologies is at the end. I removed sections like the business case which is not part of the user group research.
 Please let me know what changes (if any) you consider necessary for us to ask our parent groups to approve it as a first working draft
  
  All the best
 
 Lisa Seeman
 
 Athena ICT Accessibility Projects
 LinkedIn, Twitter