tech support 8

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Define "Cognitive Disability"

Posted on 06:38 by Unknown

Example of jumbled text.
This image is borrowed from the WebAIM article on Cognitive Disabilities.

In the blog post Definitions of "Cognitive Disability" by John Rochford, we can see that it's not so easy to define the term "cognitive disability." Given how often this term appears in accessibility statements and requirements for web sites, the author was motivated to find a clear definition. His goal:

Find a recent, functional definition of "cognitive disability" written by an appropriate U.S. federal government agency, and adopted by government agencies and education institutions throughout the country.

This goal, of course, was not as simple to meet as his statement implied:

It appears no authoritative source has published a widely-used and accepted functional definition, nor a clinical one.

His post details his search process, with hyperlinked references, along with what he actually found. His closest match was a clinical definition from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families.

This is problematic when the W3C WCAG 1.0 uses the term so freely, such as in Guideline 14: Ensure that documents are clear and simple:

Consistent page layout, recognizable graphics, and easy to understand language benefit all users. In particular, they help people with cognitive disabilities or who have difficulty reading.

Who makes the final decision on whether a document is clear and simple to a user with cognitive disabilities? How will a web developer satisfy this when required to meet these guidelines by law or contractual obligation? How will a web developer protect him/herself if sued as a result?

The Requirements for WCAG 2.0 has a section titled Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content and lists users with cognitive disabilities, but provides no further information.

Without definitions or pointers to definitions of what the term "cognitive disability" means, web developers are faced with more than a moving target. This is an unknown target when it comes to working to ensure that a web site meets WCAG (version 1 or 2) guidelines.

You can find a very open-ended definition of cognitive disabilities at the WebAIM site. While this may help you as a web developer who needs to support disabled users, this doesn't necessarily mean you will comply with a definition from W3C or the federal government, perhaps because there is none.

Related post: Developer Discusses Dyslexia and Dyscalculia.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in accessibility, WCAG | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Social Media Day 2011 in Buffalo #smdayBUF
    Last night marked the second Mashable-sponsored Social Media Day here in Buffalo. With 154 RSVPs for the event, the venue, The Eights Bist...
  • Web Accessibility Sorta-Infographic
    WebAIM is a non-profit organization within the Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State University. It has a reputation (perhaps o...
  • Now the Mobile Web Is Dead?
    It was barely two years ago that I scoffed when Wired declared the web dead ( Enough about the Death of the Web ). Fast forward to today and...
  • Browser Performance Chart
    Jacob Gube has posted a handy chart over at Six Revisions titled " Performance Comparison of Major Web Browsers ." He tests the c...
  • Facebook, HTML5, and Mis-Reporting
    My Twitter stream and the headlines of sites across the web yesterday lit up with Facebook's CEO blaming its stock price (failure to mee...
  • The Science of Trust in Social Media
    I am one of those people who always needs to see proof of some assertion, evidence to back up a claim. While I can accept anecdotal evidence...
  • ICANN Moves .org Away from VeriSign
    This Saturday, the .org top-level domain (TLD) will no longer be privately managed. With VeriSign's contract with ICANN for management ...
  • Speaking at Mom 2.0 in Houston, TX
    I will be in Houston this week to speak at the Mom 2.0 Summit (Feb. 18-20, 2010, Houston, TX). To make it a little easier to describe, here...
  • Algonquin Studios Gets Local Press
    I'm taking an opportunity to brag a little about my company, Algonquin Studios , being featured today in the Business section of our lo...
  • App Store Meta Tags
    Why yes, Dominos, I'd love to tap again to get your real home page to order a pizza when I could have done it right here, below your ove...

Categories

  • accessibility
  • Adobe
  • analytics
  • Apple
  • apps
  • ARIA
  • Bing
  • Blink
  • Brightkite
  • browser
  • Buzz
  • Chrome
  • clients
  • css
  • design
  • Facebook
  • Firefox
  • Flash
  • fonts
  • food
  • Foursquare
  • g11n
  • geolocation
  • globalization
  • Google
  • Gowalla
  • html
  • i18n
  • ICANN
  • infographic
  • Instagram
  • internationalization
  • internet
  • Internet Explorer
  • JavaScript
  • JAWS
  • Klout
  • L10n
  • law
  • localization
  • Lynx
  • Mapquest
  • Microsoft
  • mobile
  • Netscape
  • ning
  • Opera
  • patents
  • picplz
  • Plus
  • print
  • privacy
  • project management
  • QR
  • rant
  • RSS
  • Safari
  • SCVNGR
  • search
  • SEM
  • SEO
  • social media
  • Sony
  • speaking
  • standards
  • SVG
  • touch
  • translation
  • Twitter
  • typefaces
  • usability
  • UX
  • Verizon
  • video
  • W3C
  • WAI
  • WCAG
  • WebKit
  • whatwg
  • Wired
  • WOFF
  • xhtml
  • Yahoo
  • YouTube

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (39)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2012 (63)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (7)
  • ►  2011 (67)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (8)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ▼  2010 (100)
    • ►  December (8)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (7)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (12)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ▼  January (11)
      • Too Soon to Advocate HTML5?
      • Define "Cognitive Disability"
      • Mashable on the Web of Tomorrow
      • Mobile Internet Use Continues Climb
      • Firefox 3.6 Is Here
      • Accessible Video and Transcripts
      • Against Vertical Navigation
      • The Latest on HTML5
      • W3C: Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible W...
      • Article: Lots of Twitter Followers Guarantees... N...
      • ALL-CAPS: Harder to Read?
  • ►  2009 (51)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (2)
  • ►  2003 (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2002 (9)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2001 (1)
    • ►  February (1)
  • ►  2000 (4)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  1999 (7)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile