This Wiki page is edited by participants of the Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Task Force participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

Gap Analysis

From Cognitive Accessibility Task Force
Jump to: navigation, search

Gap Analysis: Table of content


Abstract and Introduction

Source documents

User Research, Techniques and Issue Paper

Gaps in semantics for personalization

"In page" semantics

Personal preferences for Coga

Portable and adaptive preferences

Metadata support

Gaps in WCAG

See the proposal for WCAG

New Requirements

Recommendations for User agent changes

Further work or appendixes

Aria-context needs implementations - this will define scope and limitation. Aria-context is language dependent

Supportive material

Supportive meta data

OLD links

We this is old content for the gap analysis. I am keeping it so we do not miss or lose anything.

Section 1: Abstract and Introduction

Section 2: Background research (modularized in part)

Review of use cases external to standards
  1. State of the art in classification of cognitive function (stable to reference modular document)
  2. User group research module (May include larger group with sub groups such as Aphasia and language disorders)
    Proposed initial list for phase 1 includes but is not limited to:
    1. dyslexia,
    2. Brain injury subset of aphasia,
    3. non-vocal,
    4. Aging and Dementia,
    5. Down Syndrome
    6. ADD/ADHD
    7. autism
    8. dyscalculia.

Other are welcome. Template

Phase 2: More groups such as: Effects of PTSD on cognitive function)

Research (modularized):

  1. Executive function


Ideas of how inclusion could be improved

Review of current standards and technologies(modularized) Template

  1. W3C: WCAG
  2. W3C: Non WCAG
  3. Non W3C


      1. How they are used for Cog A11y and
    1. Potentials and possibilities

Business case and dynamics

  1. Positives
    1. Cognitive load –dispatches
    2. Aging society
    3. Veterans with brain injury
  2. Negative
    1. Detracting from other peoples experience
    2. Legitimate variance nurodiversity
    3. Legislation based guidelines are burdensome and restrict author freedoms (hence metadata markup clues)
    4. Cross cultural and language learners