Re: Learning disabilities term in content usable and glossary

hi Abi and John

We have tried to use cognitive and learning disabilities as a phrase.  In
cases  where we have not we are meant to use the US definition.   (Maybe 6
times in the whole document)
We have in our editors "todo" list that we will harmonize the document with
the terms used in the glossary,  (when we are done with the glossary). I
found at least one instance in section 5 that used the UK meaning. That is
why we must correct these things in  the final edit.

I searched the document and found a few places that just refer to Learning
disabilities without the whole " cognitive and learning disabilities "
mainly in the "how it helps " in patterns. There is also one case in
section 5, and the appendices.

Hope it helps.
Lisa




On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:40 PM James A. <A.James@soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
>
>
> Over the past few weeks Jennie, John K and I have been trying to find a
> workable solutions to the problems we have faced with defining “learning
> disabilities” in the Content Usable glossary. Note, we are only referring
> to the use of “learning disabilities” in isolation, not as part of the
> phrase “cognitive and learning disabilities”. We have discussed this a
> number of times and each time it has raised more issues that we cannot
> resolve. The underlying problem with the term “learning disabilities” is
> that is as different meanings in North America and other countries such
> as UK, Europe and other English-speaking countries. These meanings do not
> necessarily overlap (see discussion from a UK perspective
> <http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cipold/migrated/documents/learning-disability-criteria.pdf>)
> and it is unlikely that we will come to a consensus on an acceptable
> definition within the available time frame.
>
>
>
> So we have taken a step back to look at the whole issue as, if we are
> struggling to agree a definition in the group, this could be an indication
> that we have not used it consistently with the Content Usable document
> during the collaborative writing process. We feel we should now focus on
> ensuring that we have used the term “learning disabilities” correctly and
> clearly within the document where we are unable to provide clear,
> unambiguous definitions.
>
>
>
> Therefore, we would like to put forward proposals to review how “learning
> disabilities” is used in Content Usable during the next editing stages
> using based on the following proposals. We welcome comments on these
> proposals (also available in a Google doc
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xdFPJ-71NitgcvvZed83vhqLsh3oR1DqkWId_VCJ8ws/edit?usp=sharing>)
> via the list, in the document and hope to discuss these on the call on 4th
> September. If we agree to this approach, we will raise a Github issue for
> tracking.
>
>
>
> Proposal:
>
> We should review how we have used the phrase “learning disability” in
> isolation in the Content Usable document to clarify what we mean which the
> intention of minimising it’s use.
>
> Proposed actions to undertake during editing process:
>
>    1. *Remove learning disabilities in isolation from the glossary*
>
> Due to learning disabilities being a term that can cause confusion, our
> goal is to  minimise the use of the term “learning disabilities” on its
> own. We should therefore no longer require a separate entry for learning
> disability in the glossary. “Cognitive and learning disabilities” would
> still be included in the glossary.
>
>
>
>    1. *Add example referring to learning disability/difficulties in
>    section 2.2 <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#background>*
>
> In some sections we discuss ideas related to cognitive and learning
> disability/difficulties, but we do not have learning difficulties examples.
>
> Include an additional example in section 2.2 that references learning
> difficulties. For example “People with cognitive disabilities that impact
> learning may need more support or time to complete a new process or an
> authentication task.”
>
>    1. *Replace learning disabilities with intellectual disabilities where
>    appropriate*
>
> Where using “learning disability” to refer to general learning or
> intellectual disability, we use “intellectual disability”  for clarity.
>
> This term is familiar to disability professionals (even if not the
> preferred term in the country) and  can be understood by a lay person.  We
> should include a definition of intellectual disability within the glossary.
> This is the term used in DSM-5 and is widely used internationally.
>
>    1. *Use specific diagnosis term where possible*
>
> Where using “learning disability” to refer to a learning difficulty in a
> certain area then we should replace that term with a more specific
> diagnosis if it is localised to a specific skill.
>
> In the following example, learning disability has been replaced with
> dyslexia: “As a user with a language impairment, *dyslexia* and/or a
> memory impairment, I want the language used to be clear and easy for me to
> understand so that I can understand the content.”
>
>    1. *Use Cognitive disabilities instead of learning disabilities*
>
> When using learning disabilities to cover a wider range of impairment,
> consider whether “cognitive disabilities” or “cognitive and learning
> disabilities” could be used.
>
> Using “cognitive disabilities” would be more inclusive of users with
> age-related disabilities or impairments that involve memory, processing or
> executive function.  In the following example, learning disability has been
> replaced with cognitive disability: “Sometimes content is usable by people
> with one* cognitive disability* but not a different one. For example,
> content with fewer words and more numbers may be perfect for some users
> with dyslexia or autism spectrum disorder, but inaccessible for people with
> dyscalculia who struggle with numeric information.”
>
> After undertaking these actions, then including a definition of learning
> disabilities will be lower priority and may be covered by the information
> in the document describing cognitive and learning disabilities in section
> 2.2.
>
> The Google doc for the full proposal
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xdFPJ-71NitgcvvZed83vhqLsh3oR1DqkWId_VCJ8ws/edit?usp=sharing>
> includes a list of the 15 occasions that “learning disability” is used in
> Content Usable in isolation along with some research notes on the
> terminology used in English speaking countries not directly represented on
> our calls.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Abi
>
>
>