- From: Jim Tobias <tobias@inclusive.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:53:16 -0500
- To: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Right. Plus cognitive impairment is too mushy and diverse a category, since it includes people with severe, global information processing deficits as well as people with specific learning disabilities that impair their use of information in only a single or narrow manner, such as dyslexia. > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Scarlett Julian (ED) > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:55 AM > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: RE: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive > disabiliti es > > > There is > > very little research into difficulties that people with cognitive > > disabilities have using the internet. This is reflected in > > the comparative > > lack of emphasis that their needs are given in accessibility > > guidelines. > > It may also be because sensory disabilities don't tend to stop people from > putting their point of view and making people take notice of > them. By their > very nature cognitive difficulties make it less likely that someone will > stick up for their rights or make noises about what they want/need. > > > J. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Newbery [mailto:jamesnewbery@ukconnect.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:24 PM > > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive > > disabiliti es > > > > > > First of all, we need to understand exactly what differences in > > accessibility needs might result in conflicting design > > priorities. There is > > very little research into difficulties that people with cognitive > > disabilities have using the internet. This is reflected in > > the comparative > > lack of emphasis that their needs are given in accessibility > > guidelines. > > Additionally, as Graham has pointed out, 'cognitive > > disabilities' cover an > > enormous range of impairment, so investigations in this area > > are likely to > > be lengthy and full of ambiguity. > > > > It seems to make common sense that there *are* going to be a number of > > conflicts. It then becomes that much more important that we > > understand who > > our users are, and how they use the web, so that potential > > conflicts can be > > resolved on an informed basis. > > > > This serves to remind us that accessibility guidelines are > > good at telling > > us what design aspects to include, but not at telling us > > exactly why we are > > including them. This is largely common sense when it comes to > > supporting > > physical and sensory impairments, which are socially > > 'obvious' and easier > > for people to comprehend. When it comes to cognitive > > disabilities, however, > > design 'common sense' is harder to come by, because judgments > > must be made > > about something that people often find difficult to > > comprehend. For example, > > I find it harder imagine what it might be like to have > > learning difficulties > > than what it might be like to have visual impairment. I > > personally think > > that a set of design guidelines are less informative for > > design (and less > > interesting) than an understanding of the barriers and > > facilitators that > > people face in day to day life. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On > > Behalf Of Scarlett Julian (ED) > > Sent: 26 February 2002 09:48 > > To: 'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org' > > Subject: RE: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive > > disabiliti es > > > > > > I seem to have missed out on the previous posts on this subject. The > > comments in general seem to be what I would call common sense > > useability > > issues (note that I recognise that not everyone, and certainly not web > > designers, has or uses common sense). What interests me more is David > > Brewer's statement that he can foresee a battle between > > disability groups on > > a sensory/cognitive split that will enable "web access issues > > to be skirted > > by designers". Putting aside the fact that the majority of > > designers skirt > > these issues already, how can we avoid David's perceived battleground > > becoming yet another get-out clause for web developers? It is > > obvious that > > there are very real and different issues for different groups > > of disabled > > users - how do we marry them all? Do we even try? > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:35 PM > > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > > Subject: Fw: Feedback on accessibility techniques for > > cognitive disabilities > > > > > > > > interesting > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Elaina Sitaras > > To: seeman@netvision.net.il > > Cc: smb23@cornell.edu > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:23 PM > > Subject: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive > > disabilities > > > > > > Lisa, > > > > I am very sorry that I did not send this out last week as Susanne had > > indicated. > > Attached to this email you should find two documents -- one with the > > comments and the other with the contact information for those who > > contributed. > > > > Elaina Sitaras > > > > > > > > X-Sender: smb23@postoffice4.mail.cornell.edu (Unverified) > > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:04:45 -0500 > > X-PH: V4.1@postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) > > To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il> > > From: Susanne Bruyere <smb23@cornell.edu> > > Subject: Feedback on accessibility techniques for cognitive > > disabilities > > Cc: es48@cornell.edu (Elaina Sitaras) > > > > Lisa, > > > > We have not forgotten you. I sent your guidelines off to our > > own staff, and > > also to four colleagues with expertise in cognitive > > disabilities (traumatic > > brain injury) and developmental disabilities. We have been > > waiting to see if > > anyone else responded to us. Elaina Sitaras, our Research > > Assistant, is > > coalescing these responses for us, and will be sending these > > off to out > > tomorrow, from whatever feedback we have gotten. She will > > also be sending > > the names and contact information for anyone who has > > responded, in case you > > want to get back to them with questions. We hope that this will be of > > assistance. > > > > Susanne Bruyere > > > > > > At 06:24 PM 2/13/2002 -0800, you wrote: > > That is fantastic, > > Thanks > > The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be > > disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you > > are not the > > addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your > > email software > > as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any > > responsibility > > for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has > > been transmitted > > over a public network. If you suspect that the message may have been > > intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible. > > > The information in this email is confidential. The contents may > not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If > you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply > facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield > City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or > completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a > public network. If you suspect that the message may have been > intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible. >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 09:47:11 UTC