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.
- 1 About This Page
- 2 Current Mandate
- 3 What are we working on now?
- 4 Current schedules
- 5 Citations
- 6 Key links
- 7 Upcoming Work
- 8 Key Resolutions
- 9 Open issues
- 10 Other Relevant Links
- 11 Other pages of our work
- 12 Technologies to review
- 13 Authors of User group research modules
- 14 Reports
About This Page
This page is used by the task force to track our current work. To learn more about the task force take a look at our home page, our public list or our work statement. Send us comments at email@example.com.
We are having our next meeting at TPAC
We are currently focused on a gap analysis. we have first drafts of the following accompanying documents: (Note they are works in progress and may change.)
- Issue papers on topics such as security, safety and how they are affected by cognitive disabilities. Works in progress are also available at Gap Analysis Issue Papers.
- Draft for a semantics for adaptive interfaces (that may become a WAI-ARIA extension) and personalization syntax to enable adaptable interfaces.
Working examples of how this could be used in practice with user preferences are available. This is a project to help personalization for any use - including people with learning and memory issues. It is described more at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Easy_Personalization.
It is made of 4 parts:
- JSON files for user setting:
- semantics for adaptive interfaces
- An HTML page that uses some of the new aria syntax Example of adaptive page
- Scripts that a web author can use or include that read the user settings in the JSON files and adapt the page for the user needs example script
Notes from our Face to Face meeting in London FTF issues and agenda,
Our current mandate is to:
- Perform a Gap Analysis;
- create and suggest techniques; and
- create a roadmap.
What are we working on now?
A module of the Gap Analysis is user research. We are getting it ready for the first working draft. Note that the current draft of user research is on GitHub. You can also see the published draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/coga-user-research/.
Rewriting the Success Criteria Proposal. See the SC todo list
Also as part of the Gap Analysis we are:
- Identifying known and proposed techniques. If you want to add a technique use the technique template.
- Identifying specific issues that effect our users and need special consideration. A collection of these issue papers is at: Gap Analysis Issue Papers and at github at https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/index.html . Also see the issue paper template.
- Specification for Easy Personalization and Personalization criteria and Providing graded help
General To do
- make prescriptive
- give good descriptions for user agents like Kurzweil 3000?
- add draft the business case and user needs
todo - next draft of techniques
- Make dysculcila consistent -done
- Add techniques for issue papers
- Review and edit - make prescriptive
todo - next draft of issue papers
- Add note of what is missing
- next draft of each paper ..
- Security and Privacy Technologies -John R
- Online Safety - Lisa
- Voice Menu Systems -Debra Dahl
- Online Payments - Debra Rue and Neil
- Flat Design - Jamie?
- User Preferences - Mike and Lisa
- Add Providing graded help
- Add Interoperable preference
- Adaptable Links and Buttons -lisa
- Add meta data support
- Symbols for Non-Verbal - EA
- Numbers and Math - Tony
- Web of Things - Jannina
- Add Attention and distraction - Neil
- modality -ea
todo - Gap Analisis
- Make dysculcila consistent
- Add techniques for issue papers
- Review and edit
Lower priority for now
Gap analysis 28th January - Freeze content (as an editors draft) to go into a first Working Draft. Aim to publish first Working Draft 1st March
To contain Issue papers, Techniques , Summary
We will then continue reviewing issue papers
1st March 2016: Working Draft of user research module
This and feedback from the proposals will make second editors draft of
1st April 2016: COGA for ARIA (2nd editors draft) 1st April 2016: COGA for WCAG (2nd editors draft)
1st June 2nd Working Draft of the gap analysis and 1st Working Draft of roadmap
1st December Editors draft of the glossary
Materials published by this task force have a lot of citations. W3C has a particular format and tooling for those. While there is a central database of specifications and other publications, most of the citations used by this group are not in that central database. Therefore the task force maintains a separate database of citations. See instructions for creating and using citations.
- Name officially needs to include LD or CLL
- Term needed for "recommendations" in roadmap as "recommendations" is a reserved word in the W3C. (Suggestion: Proposals and/or Principles)
- Helping users improving skills is out of scope but useful for outreach
- we will use the term 'intellectual disabilities' rather than just use terms such as Down Syndrome or other specific types of intellectual disability
- We are avoiding the phrase ICT with other, Web related terms intellectual disability such as Down Syndrome.
- We are using the term intellectual disability rather then specific type of
- We can resolve small issues on the calls. Larger resolutions need to be approved on our list. We expect people to bring up opposition to resolution within 48 hours.
- Criteria by which we decide what research to accept:Due to practical constraints most research will simply be cited and not examined for credibility. However the following cases will rely on task force consensuses before inclusion:
- Commercial research that implies the use of a specific proprietary product will be examined for scientific credibility before being included
- Research where the task force is aware of contradictory evidence (including anecdotal) will be examined for scientific credibility before being included.
Links for evaluating what scientific research is good (or not): http://www.reportbd.com/articles/57/1/Criteria-Qualities-of-Good-Scientific-Research/Page1.html
- we have discussed a few times changing our name. There is a huge problem with localization.
The task force name should contain LD, but disabilities may be replaced for impairments or challenges.
Other Relevant Links
Other pages of our work
Technologies to review
- Assistive technologies such as AAC and AAC core vocabularies
- Reading techs
- Adaptive technologies for learning
- APIP and IMS
- Daisy and epub
- Fluid and FLOE
- Voice ML and menu systems
- Web Security (Including CAPTCHA)
- WebRTC (real time communications)
- Fluid and Floe
- Debra Dahl
- Text Simplification
Also taken from HTML 5 wishlist:
- Full Transcript
- John Foliot is interested in exploring this.
- Media Descriptions
- John Foliot.
- Date UI Widgets
- Input type numeric
- Emotion Markup
- Debra Dahl
- Haptic Output
- Referencing UAAG
- Web Payments
- Footnotes, End notes, Annotations, Definitions
- ePub, ARIA
- Real Time Chat
- John Foliot
Authors of User group research modules
- Communication Difficulties and Disorders including non-vocal: Joshue O Connor Deborah Dahl, Avi Gloden and E.A. Draffan (Prev: Kinshuk)
- Dyslexia: Lisa Seeman
- ADD / ADHD: Neil Milliken, Jim Smith, Susann Keohane and Mary Jo Mueller (Prev: Barry Johnson, Katherine Mancuso, and Michel Fitos )
- Down Syndrome: John Foliot, Kate Dieble, Debra Ruh
- Aging and Dementia:Katie Haritos-Shea, Mary Jo Mueller, Neil Milliken and Susann Keohane(Prev:Elle Waters)
- Autism: John Rochford, Neil Milliken
- Dyscalculia: Neil Milliken.
Volunteer research groups: John Rochford