Re: Janina's comments yesterday

I noticed in one of the post that you were talking about using the 1000 or 2000 most frequent words. I did a lot of word studies in my early career and before you do this you should take a very close look at what the first 1000 and 2000 words look like. For example, I would not be able to write this email. Many websites would have to forgo most of the nouns. Turns out the most frequently used words are not the nouns so you end up saying a lot but you can’t be specific about what you’re talking about. It works better in daily living conversation where the number of nouns is more limited.

In fact, if my memory is correct, there are not a whole lot of nouns at all in the first 500 words.

 Isn’t the frequency of a word that is important, it’s more the language level.

But I do want to commend you on the work you’ve been doing in the appendix and elsewhere, where you are worrying less about testable criteria and more about just really good advice about how to make things better for people with cognitive disabilities.

Finally, I would like to mention that we’ve just  turned in a renewal to our center grant and one of the projects is to work on the accessibility guidelines for next-next-generation ICT. That is the ICT we will have in 20 years. I think that we will have an entirely different landscape for technology at that time, with new tools, and a much greater ability to address the barriers faced by those with cognitive language and learning disabilities. Over the next year we will be looking for people who want to and can think out that far to help us in looking at this (technology futurists etc.) combined with those who best know the different disabilities to help look for the implications and the opportunities. This is just a heads-up at this point but something for everyone to think about. Technology is changing very rapidly and I am concerned were spending too much time looking backwards in the future will be here but we will be too late to take advantage of it. Are there things we can do to shape policy and even research so that we will be in a better place to both understand and take advantage of these new technologies in addressing the needs of the full spectrum of people facing barriers to  ICT access.

Best

gregg

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 5:08 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks
> 
> I was thinking about what Janina was saying on the call yesterday And I am not sure we  gave it enough air time (or I may have spoken to much...) In a nut shell maybe the coga task force should be making these terms about support in alternative content (the module 2 vocabulary ) as part of their work and we create the pointing mechanism. It would make us a bit like EARL. 
> 
> Originally this work was done as part of COGA. We moved to ARIA and now APA, but maybe this piece should go back to coga.  I think in terms of understanding how to build a vocabulary we may be the better address.
> Is that the proposal or are you now happy with it staying with us?
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
> 
>