The Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force ( COGA )
Nemchinova cognitive disabilities
-
Upload
yulia-nemchinova -
Category
Documents
-
view
290 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Nemchinova cognitive disabilities
Designing for Peoplewith Cognitive Disabilities:
How Can the UX Community Help?
Yulia Nemchinova
Northrop Grumman Corporation
October 19, 2012
User Focus Conference
2
Who Has Cognitive Disabilities
Seven percent in the US have some type of cognitive, mental or emotional impairment (Census 2010)
3
Types of Cognitive Disabilities
Learning and language disabilities, including dyslexia
Attention disordersTraumatic brain injuries (TBI)Developmental impairments,
including mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome
Cognitive issues related to aging
4
Types of Functional Impact
Executive functionsMemoryAttentionVisual and spatial perceptionLanguage and readingMathematical thinkingEmotional control, expression,
understandingSpeed of reasoningSolving new problemsSolving problems based on experience
5
When Users Encounter Obstacles…
Lack of confirmation that their action was correct
Cannot find and review features
Cannot recover from errorsCannot find landmarks Do not have enough time to
complete tasksCannot save their work at any
time…
6
When Users Encounter Obstacles…
It is a work around for most users
It is a real showstopper for many users with cognitive impairments
7
The Accessibility Research Landscape
Blindness remains the priority for accessibility researchers
Lack of research on the usability engineering methods suitable for users with cognitive disabilities
Limited representation of cognitive impairments within the accessibility community
Very little testing has been conducted
8
Why Are We So Behind?
Cognitive impairments are often:InvisibleDifficult to diagnoseNot universally definedNot willingly disclosed
9
Needs Assessment
“When it comes to needs assessment more often than not people with disabilities prefer not to disclose it or they don’t know what their disability is.”
Nancie Payne, PhDConsultant, Payne & Associates, Inc.
10
Obstacles in Designing for Cognitive
Complexity of cognitive issuesChallenging to find a universal
approachNo automated validation tools
exist, and it is unlikely a tool could substitute for human evaluation
11
Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool
WAVE: a grant project at WebAimIdea: to ‘embed’ programmatic
solutions into a single toolIssue: supporting one disability
contradicted support for another; providing images to help with language disabilities distracted users with attention disorders
12
WAVE Project
We no longer think that the best solution for users with cognitive disabilities is to put issues of cognitive load and web accessibility into the hands of web developers. While they have an important role in helping, the need to HIGHLY individualize to the unique user is too great to be practical.
Cyndi Rowland, PhDExecutive Director WebAIM; National Center on
Disability and Access to Education Center for Persons with Disabilities, Utah State University
13
Curb Cut Access
14
Support Assistive Technologies
Screen readersPlug-ins such as BrowseAloud by
TextHelp Read&Write by TextHelp VoiceOver for iPhone and
comparative Android applications
15
Universal Design
Aiming to assist most usersCan be incorporated into existing
systems without having to design separate version
16
Universal Design: Navigation
Consistent navigation and design on every page
Flat navigational architectureFunctioning Back buttonLimited the number of links per
pageStandard behavior for links
17
Universal Design: Language & Literacy
Clear and simple textNewspaper style 6-8 reading level with a simple
sentence structureShort pages, paragraphs and
sentencesSingle column of contentAvoid navigational links at the
right, which can be distractive
18
Mobile or Slimmed Down Access
Direct access to contentLimited content to processAvailability on multiple electronic
devices
Clayton Lewis, PhD Professor of Computer Science, Scientist in Residence, Coleman Institute for Cognitive
Disabilities, University of Colorado
19
Usability Testing
Usability studies with cognitively impaired people are extremely rare
User testing is neededThere is no substitution for actual
users with disabilities
20
The Future: GPII
Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII)
Video about GPII: http://gpii.net/node/108
21
Thank you!
22
References:
Bergel, M., Chadwick-Dias, A., & Tullis, T. (2005). Leveraging Universal Design in a Financial Services Company. Accessibility and Computing, 82.
Bodine, C., & Lewis, C. (2004). Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) for the Advancement of Cognitive Technologies. Accessibility and Computing, 80.
Cole, E. (2011). Lessons Learned and Challenges Discovered in Developing Cognitive Technology for Individuals with Brain Injury. Proceeding of CHI 2011.
Czaja, S. J., Gregor, P., & Hanson, V. L. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on aging and information technology. ACM Trans. Access. Comput, 4.
Fernando, S., Elliman, T., Money, A., & Lines, L. (2009). Age Related Cognitive Impairments and Diffusion of Assistive Web-Base Technologies. Universal Access in HCI, Part I, HCII 2009 (pp. 353-360). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
23
References (contd.):
Francik, E., Levine, S., Tremain, S., Roberts, E., & Bayha, B. (1999). Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with Cognitive Disabilities. Annotated Bibliography and Research Recommendations, World Institute on Disability.
Gordon, W. A., & Nash, J. (2005). The Interface Between Cognitive Impairments and Access to Information Technology.
Gregor, P., & Dickinson, A. (2006). Cognitive difficulties and access to information systems – an interaction design perspective.
Hagood, K., Moore, T., Pierre, T., Messamer, P., Ramsberger, G., & Lewis, C. (2010). Naming Practice for People with Aphasia in a Mobile Web Application: Early User Experience. ASSETS: ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, 273-274.
Hanson, V. L. (2009). Cognition, Age, and Web Browsing. Universal Access in HCI, Part I, HCII 2009, (pp. 245-250). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
24
References (contd.):
Jansche, M., Feng, L., & Huenerfauth, M. (2010). Reading Difficulty in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Analysis with a Hierarchical Latent Trait Model. ASSETS’10,. Orlando, Florida, USA.
Judson, A., & Nicolle, C. (2004). Internet accessibility for people who use augmentative and alternative communication. Conference Proceedings -- International Society for Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 181-186.
Keates, S., Kozloski, J., & Varker, P. (2009). Cognitive Impairments, HCI and Daily Living. Universal Access in HCI, Part I, HCII 2009 (pp. 366-374). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Lepistö, A., & Ovaska, S. (2004). Usability evaluation involving participants with cognitive disabilities. NordiCHI '04. Tampere, Finland.
Lewis, C. Cognitive and Learning Impairments.
Lewis, C. (2008). Cognitive Disabilities. In The Universal Access Handbook.
25
References (contd.):
Lewis, C. (2006, May-June). HCI and Cognitive Disabilities. Interactions , pp. 14-15.
Lewis, C. HCI for People with Cognitive Disabilities.
Lewis, C. (2006). Simplicity in cognitive assistive technology: a framework and agenda for research. Univ Access Inf Soc (pp. 351-361). Springer-Verlag.
Moffatt, K., & Davies, R. (2004). The Aphasia Project: Designing technology for and with individuals who have aphasia. Accessibility and Computing, 80, pp. 11-17.
Poncelas, A., & Murphy, G. (2007). Accessible Information for People with Intellectual Disabilities: Do Symbols Really Help? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 20, pp. 466-474. BILD Publications.
Poulson, D., & Nicolle, C. (2004). Making the Internet accessible for people with cognitive and communication Impairments. Universal Access in the Information Society, 3(1), 48-56.
26
References (contd.):
Redish, J. (., & Chisnell, D. (2004). Designing Web Sites for Older Adults: A Review of Recent Literature. AARP.
Rowland, C. (2010). Accessibility: The Need for Champions and Awareness in Higher Education. Educause Review, 45(6), 12.
Rowland, C. (2010). Transforming the Institution. Educause Review, 45(6), 14.
Savidis, A., & Stephanidis, C. (2004). Developing Inclusive e-Learning and e-Entertainment to Effectively Accommodate Learning Difficulties., (pp. 42-54).
Solheim, I. (2009). Adaptive User Interfaces: Benefit or Impediment for Lower-Literacy Users? Universal Access in HCI, Part II, HCII 2009 (pp. 758-765). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Summers, K., & Summers, M. (2005). Reading and Navigational Strategies of Web Users with Lower Literacy Skills. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42.
27
References (contd.):
Vigouroux, N., Rumeau, P., Vella, F., & Vellas, B. (2009). Studying Point-Select-Drag Interaction Techniques for Older People with Cognitive Impairment. Universal Access in HCI, Part I, HCII 2009 (pp. 422-428). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Walser, K., Quesenbery, W., & Swierenga, S. (2008). Designing for Cognitive Disabilities. UPA 2008 – The Many Faces of User Experience. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
WebAIM. (n.d.). Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Literature Review. Retrieved from WebAIM Web Accessibility in Mind: http://webaim.org/projects/steppingstones/litreviewsummary
WebAIM. (n.d.). Steppingstones Project on Web Accessibility and Cognitive Disabilities in Education. Retrieved from WebAIM Web Accessibility in Mind: http://webaim.org/projects/steppingstones/steppingstones