NCDAE Webcast
Cognitive Disabilities and the Web: What We Think We Know

The National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE) is hosting the webcast titled "Cognitive Disabilities and the Web: What We Think We Know." It will be held Wednesday January 31st, 2007 from 1:00 - 2:00 PM Mountain Standard Time (12:00PM Pacific; 2:00PM Central; 3:00PM Eastern). The audio broadcast will last approximately one hour. It is free of charge and will be captioned simultaneously for the deaf and hard of hearing.

Overview

The field of accessible Web design has moved in important positive directions in the past decade to improve accessibility to groups of individuals with disabilities, mainly those with sensory and motor impairments. Yet individuals with cognitive disabilities (the greatest numbers within the disability population) have been largely ignored. This is in part due to a lack of consensus in the field about what recommendations should be made. The panel will explore both professional opinion and empirical research across different disciplines to help us determine what recommendations could be provided to the field now, if any.

You will be able to tune in to the audio-only broadcast free of charge beginning 10 minutes before the broadcast begins. The broadcast will last approximately one hour. You will be able to tune in using your computer using either Windows Media Player or Quicktime. Archives (transcript and audio) will be available shortly after the conclusion of the broadcast. The broadcast will be captioned for the deaf and hard of hearing. Archived audio recordings and transcript will be available a few days after the conclusion of the broadcast.

To receive a reminder and additional information regarding the Web cast, please join our contact list.

Panelists

Clayton Lewis

Lewis is Professor of Computer Science, and Fellow of the Institute of Cognitive Science, at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where he has been based since 1984. He is well known for his research on evaluation methods in user interface design. Two methods to which he and his colleagues have contributed, the thinking aloud method and the cognitive walkthrough, are in regular use in software development organizations around the world. He has also contributed to programming language design, to educational technology, and to cognitive theory in causal attribution and learning. He has twice served as Technical Program Chair or Co-chair for the ACM CHI Conferences on Human Factors in Computing Systems, the leading international conference in that field, and serves on the editorial boards for Human-Computer Interaction and Cognitive Science.

Prior to joining the University of Colorado, Lewis was Manager of Human Factors at IBM's Watson Research Center. He has held visiting positions at the Center for Advanced Decision Support in Water and Environmental Systems (at the University of Colorado), at the University of Vienna, at the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (University of Maine), at the Knowledge Media Institute at the Open University in Milton Keynes, England, and at IBM's Printing Systems Division.

At the University of Colorado Lewis serves on the Advisory Board for the Alliance for Technology, Learning and Society, an interdisciplinary institute for education and research. He is also Scientist in Residence at the Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities. He was named University of Colorado President's Teaching Scholar in 1989, a life title signifying the University's highest award for teaching. He served as Computer Science department chair from 1999 to 2003.

Lewis earned an AB in mathematics from Princeton University, an MS from MIT, for interdisciplinary study in mathematics and linguistics, and a PhD from the University of Michigan in experimental psychology. He has authored or co-authored more than 50 technical articles and has received more than $2.5M in research funding.

Paul Bohman

Paul Bohman is Technology Coordinator at the Kellar Institute for Human Disabilities and Lead Architect of Web Services in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University. He has been involved in web accessibility since 1999, starting with his role as Technology Coordinator for WebAIM at the Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State University. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction through Utah State University.

Moderator

The discussion will be moderated by Cyndi Rowland of the National Center on Disability and Access to Education.

Archives

Windows Media Player

Quicktime

Transcript

Download Media Players: Windows Media Player with link to download page. Quicktime 5 with link to Quicktime download page.

Questions & Answers

The follown section contains Paul Bohman's answers to participant-submitted questions.

Question: I want to know pros/cons of using Dragon Dictate and similar software with interactive websites.

Dragon Dictate is a great application for people who have a clear voice, but don't want to (or can't) use their hands to manipulate the keyboard and/or mouse. It won't work well for people with disabilities that affect the clarity of the voice, as is often the case with cerebral palsy, among other conditions.

In terms of being able to access interactive content, Dragon Dictate should be able to access most kinds of interaction, but it is not always an elegant or easy process. Dragon can be used to emulate keyboard or mouse movements, but keyboard movements are easier. If the interaction requires quick mouse movements, such as in some game-based learning environments, Dragon will probably not be a useful tool to manipulate the interface. Similarly, if very precise mouse movements are required, Dragon will be a clumsy way to interact with the content.

From a design standpoint, it's best to ensure that the content is usable with either a keyboard or a mouse. It is also best to avoid requiring very precise mouse movements or interactions. Some kinds of interaction are highly mouse-dependent. In those instances, the interactions should be either avoided, or keyboard methods of accessing the same content should be programmed into the content.

Question: Have you studied how people with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, or ADHD, use the Web? If so, what have you found?

The research that I have done is in reviewing the literature. I can't yet claim to have done any direct research with people with dyslexia or ADHD myself. There are some studies that match your question, but I'm still in the process of sifting through the all and categorizing them. One study found that readers with dyslexia benefit from "reading machines" that read the text aloud (http://images.apple.com/education/k12/nclba/literacy/pdf/0198_Efficacy_Study.pdf). Another study underscored the idea that concrete words are more easily understood than abstract words for some people with dyslexia (http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=yeqccxy41ly6k8kd). Some resources exist which give guidelines for developing for dyslexia (http://accessites.org/gbcms_xml/news_page.php?id=28#n28), though not all of the guidelines are equally supported by empirical research. Here is a resource written by a person with dyslexia, describing design techniques that he benefits from: http://old.techdis.ac.uk/seven/papers/dyslexia.html.

Here are some ideas that are more prescriptive than descriptive, but I'll include them here anyway:

In the category of "expert opinion that may or not be true", here are a few suggestions for dyslexia (this list is definitely not all-inclusive):

In terms of ADHD, some general ideas (also needing more research) are the following:

Hopefully we'll be able to add more to these lists, and find the research to back them up.

Question: Are you guys going to point to sites/books where us web designers can get some good ideas on how to make out sites more accessible to people with the WIDE variety of cognitive disabilities you're addressing?

It might be best to start with the many books out there that address web usability ("Don't Make Me Think" by Steve Krug or "Web Usability" by Jakob Nielson are two of the more famous examples, but there are many). As was mentioned several times during the broadcast, web usability is important for all users, but especially for users with cognitive disabilities. Pay close attention the flow through the website experience, including navigation, error prevention, and error recovery. Make it as fool-proof as possible to enter the site, find resources, and perform the kinds of tasks that people ought to perform on the site. For the main navigation, use very few, very short words. Consolidate the navigational links as much as possible, and try to make them as unambiguous as possible, so that users don't have to guess whether link A or link B is the one they really want. That's not always an easy task.

Then, I would look at the content and try to reduce it down too. The Creative Commons "human readable" terms of use pages are great examples of minimalist writing, complete with illustrations and attractive design. Compare the human readable page at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ to the lawyer-readable page at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/legalcode Which one is more readable? Which one is more attractive? Which one is more understandable by more people? Obviously, the first example is. Of course, they also provide the wordier version for the more legally-inclined readers. This is a necessary and good approach to take with this kind of document.

After that, I would look at the many resources available that discuss making content accessible to people who use screen readers. Some people with cognitive disabilities benefit from using screen readers that read the content aloud, even if they can see the content.

Beyond that, the resources listed with this webcast are good places to start, but there is a lot of unwritten content out there waiting for someone to be brave enough to write it.

Question: As many of you may know, the federal government has convened a group to re-examine federal accessible information technology guidelines as recommended by Section 508 of the Rehab Act. How can your research inform this process? Maybe Clayton wants to talk about this one?

Question: Has any of the research that has been done shown that icons or pictures help if used whereever possible?

Almost all "experts" recommend including images and illustrations. Very few studies have looked at this closely though. One study found that poor readers were able to significantly increase comprehension when illustrations were present (Donald, D. (1983). The Use and Value of Illustrations as Contextual Information for Readers at Different Progress and Developmental Levels. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 175-185.), though the illustrations were not as useful to good readers.

Question: Can you describe standards or resources that address the cognitive content of web information e.g. reading level, sentence structure, information organization etc?

Question: If we are developing tools for the web or other formats that we believe will be helpful to adults with cognitive limitations is there a forum in which they might be submitted for peer review?

There are many ways of getting feedback. Hopefully my response isn't at too basic of a level for what you're asking, but here it is: Email discussion forum groups, such as those available at webaim (www.webaim.org/discussion) and the W3C are one type of resource. Conferences are another venue. The Technology & Persons with Disabilities Conference (CSUN) is one that comes to mind, and there are many others. Scholarly journals are another way. At some point along the way, you'll want people in the target audience (i.e. people with disabilities) to test the tools and provide feedback.

Question: How can we invest in college courses that teach web design so that some of these considerations are taught from the beginning?

Some programs are doing this already. At George Mason University, I teach a course entitled "Web Accessibility and Design," which is a required course for all students in the Instructional Technology program, and is one of the foundation level courses for the program. It would be nice if similar courses were taught for programs in computer science, information technology, and other related disciplines.

Many courses that teach HTML make at least a passing reference to accessibility, but most instructors only have a passing knowledge of what accessibility really means. It needs to be integrated in more programs, and at a deeper level.

Question: Is there a date to go with this bibliography? Paddison, C., & Englefield, P. Applying heuristics to accessibility inspections. Interacting with Computers, 16(3), 507-521.

The date is 2003. I need to go through the list of resources I provided to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Question: How do we persuade the Feds to fund more research in this area?

Question: I'm a writer, consultant, and designer for the industry. Would you be interested in co-authoring a work that could summarize your research and create a set of guidelines for web developers? I'm located outside Washington, DC, and work extensively for the fed govt on 508 issues.

I am open to discussing ideas along these lines.

Resources

Submitted by Clayton Lewis

Submitted by Paul Bohman

Submitted by Cyndi Rowland

Previous Webcasts

View a list of archived Webcasts

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Project #P116Z030143
© 2004 - NCDAE. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use: This document may be reproduced and distributed in print or electronic format only if it is offered at no cost to recipients and as long as full credit is given to NCDAE, including a link to the NCDAE Web site (http://ncdae.org), and as long as this Terms of Use notice remains intact.