W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > January 2015

Re: user research module is published

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:52:19 +0200
To: Simon Evans <simon@cognable.com>, <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14b01989559.12769377170328.7240504505444266971@zoho.com>
Hi Simon
I am sending this to the comments list, so it can be addressed by the task force. 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:39:40 +0200 Simon Evans&lt;simon@cognable.com&gt; wrote ---- 

 Hi Lisa,
 There's a lot of stuff there I take issue with I'm afraid....
 The absence of intellectual disability and the inclusion of Down's Syndrome as a core category being the most significant....the SD of the Down's Syndrome population in terms of affective behaviour and mental capacity is so huge (3 or 4x that of general population) that any attempt to define adaptation in terms of that population is inherently flawed - it's also an anachronistic attitude towards people who have the disorder which should not be used to define them or their capability. It's not a term I'd use, but I know many self-advocates who consider this attitude racism and have dedicated themselves to fighting it.
 In respect of dyslexia you should definitely read though the research listed http://www.dyslexics.org.uk/dyslexia_myths.htm - it's a messy site, but the research therein is very useful and fits with the clinical consensus in respect of dyslexia. Changes in the law here in the UK (only approaches backed by peer-reviewed research are funded these days) have done much to weaken commercial interests in respect of specialist dyslexia teachers, dyslexia aids, Irlen lenses and other nonsensical pedagogic approaches. This site reflects the current state of play outside of the US quite well - though much of the cited research is from US institutions.
 You've referenced BDA in several places, while they've attempted to reform themselves in recent years, this was an organisation which had a very negative impact on pedagogic approaches towards reading difficulty in the UK - for years they trained specialist dyslexia teachers and produced the most commonly used psuedo-scientific assessments for dyslexia - however these qualifications are no longer recognised in the UK, and any research which sampled on the basis of their assessments is no longer considered valid, quite often retracted in the clinical space - and note that this was most of UK dyslexia research prior to the 21st Century. 
 Once again I implore you to look at ICF - it's the framework which has underpinned disability &amp; health provision/adaption globally for decades, is extensively researched/trialled and was authored over decades by hundreds of clinicians expert in their respective fields - the largest single group coming from the CDC in the US. Expanding this framework is not only necessary for real-world impact but also addresses the two greatest failings of WAI - the failure to acknowledge that disability occurs in a context and the absolute and striking failure to engage with the demographics of disability.
 On 16/01/2015 05:39, lisa.seeman wrote:
 2058360371.2289231119239771131@zoho.com" type="cite"&gt; Hi Folks
 The first draft of the user research module is published. 
 It contains  background information and challenges that people with cognitive disabilities have when using the Web.
 Did we miss any important research or user challenges? Now is the time to let us know.  http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4310
 All the best
 Lisa Seeman
 Athena ICT Accessibility Projects
 LinkedIn, Twitter
Received on Monday, 19 January 2015 09:54:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:15:02 UTC