nemchinova cognitive disabilities

Download Nemchinova cognitive disabilities

Post on 03-Dec-2014




1 download

Embed Size (px)




  • 1. Designing for People with Cognitive Disabilities:How Can the UX Community Help?Yulia Nemchinova Northrop Grumman Corporation October 19, 2012User Focus Conference

2. Who Has Cognitive Disabilities Seven percent in the US have sometype of cognitive, mental or emotionalimpairment (Census 2010) 2 3. Types of Cognitive Disabilities Learning and language disabilities, including dyslexia Attention disorders Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) Developmental impairments, including mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome Cognitive issues related to aging3 4. Types of Functional Impact Executive functions Memory Attention Visual and spatial perception Language and reading Mathematical thinking Emotional control, expression,understanding Speed of reasoning Solving new problems Solving problems based on experience 4 5. When Users EncounterObstacles Lack of confirmation that theiraction was correct Cannot find and review features Cannot recover from errors Cannot find landmarks Do not have enough time tocomplete tasks Cannot save their work at anytime5 6. When Users EncounterObstacles It is a work around for mostusers It is a real showstopper for manyusers with cognitive impairments6 7. The Accessibility ResearchLandscape Blindness remains the priority foraccessibility researchers Lack of research on the usabilityengineering methods suitable for userswith cognitive disabilities Limited representation of cognitiveimpairments within the accessibilitycommunity Very little testing has been conducted 7 8. Why Are We So Behind?Cognitive impairments are often: Invisible Difficult to diagnose Not universally defined Not willingly disclosed 8 9. Needs AssessmentWhen it comes to needs assessmentmore often than not people withdisabilities prefer not to disclose it or theydont know what their disability is.Nancie Payne, PhDConsultant, Payne & Associates, Inc. 9 10. Obstacles in Designing forCognitive Complexity of cognitive issues Challenging to find a universalapproach No automated validation tools exist,and it is unlikely a tool could substitutefor human evaluation 10 11. Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool WAVE: a grant project at WebAim Idea: to embed programmaticsolutions into a single tool Issue: supporting one disabilitycontradicted support for another;providing images to help with languagedisabilities distracted users withattention disorders 11 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, PhD Executive Director WebAIM; National Center on Disability and Access to Education Center forPersons with Disabilities, Utah State University 12 13. Curb Cut Access13 14. Support Assistive Technologies Screen readers Plug-ins such as BrowseAloud by TextHelp Read&Write by TextHelp VoiceOver for iPhone and comparative Android applications14 15. Universal Design Aiming to assist most users Can be incorporated into existing systems without having to design separate version 15 16. Universal Design: Navigation Consistent navigation and design onevery page Flat navigational architecture Functioning Back button Limited the number of links per page Standard behavior for links 16 17. Universal Design: Language &Literacy Clear and simple text Newspaper style 6-8 reading level with a simplesentence structure Short pages, paragraphs andsentences Single column of content Avoid navigational links at the right,which can be distractive 17 18. Mobile or Slimmed Down Access Direct access to content Limited content to process Availability on multiple electronicdevicesClayton Lewis, PhDProfessor of Computer Science, Scientist in Residence, Coleman Institute for CognitiveDisabilities, University of Colorado 18 19. Usability Testing Usability studies with cognitivelyimpaired people are extremely rare User testing is needed There is no substitution for actualusers with disabilities19 20. The Future: GPII Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) Video about GPII: 21. Thank you! 21 22. References:Bergel, M., Chadwick-Dias, A., & Tullis, T. (2005). Leveraging Universal Designin 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 andComputing, 80.Cole, E. (2011). Lessons Learned and Challenges Discovered in DevelopingCognitive Technology for Individuals with Brain Injury. Proceeding of CHI 2011.Czaja, S. J., Gregor, P., & Hanson, V. L. (2009). Introduction to the specialissue on aging and information technology. ACM Trans. Access. Comput, 4.Fernando, S., Elliman, T., Money, A., & Lines, L. (2009). Age Related CognitiveImpairments and Diffusion of Assistive Web-Base Technologies. UniversalAccess in HCI, Part I, HCII 2009 (pp. 353-360). Springer-Verlag BerlinHeidelberg.22 23. References (contd.):Francik, E., Levine, S., Tremain, S., Roberts, E., & Bayha, B. (1999).Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with CognitiveDisabilities. Annotated Bibliography and Research Recommendations, WorldInstitute on Disability.Gordon, W. A., & Nash, J. (2005). The Interface Between CognitiveImpairments and Access to Information Technology.Gregor, P., & Dickinson, A. (2006). Cognitive difficulties and access toinformation 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 inHCI, Part I, HCII 2009, (pp. 245-250). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 23 24. References (contd.):Jansche, M., Feng, L., & Huenerfauth, M. (2010). Reading Difficulty in Adultswith Intellectual Disabilities: Analysis with a Hierarchical Latent Trait Model.ASSETS10,. Orlando, Florida, USA.Judson, A., & Nicolle, C. (2004). Internet accessibility for people who useaugmentative and alternative communication. Conference Proceedings --International Society for Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 181-186.Keates, S., Kozloski, J., & Varker, P. (2009). Cognitive Impairments, HCI andDaily Living. Universal Access in HCI, Part I, HCII 2009 (pp. 366-374).Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Lepist, A., & Ovaska, S. (2004). Usability evaluation involving participants withcognitive disabilities. NordiCHI 04. Tampere, Finland.Lewis, C. Cognitive and Learning Impairments.Lewis, C. (2008). Cognitive Disabilities. In The Universal Access Handbook. 24 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 andagenda for research. Univ Access Inf Soc (pp. 351-361). Springer-Verlag.Moffatt, K., & Davies, R. (2004). The Aphasia Project: Designing technology forand with individuals who have aphasia. Accessibility and Computing, 80, pp.11-17.Poncelas, A., & Murphy, G. (2007). Accessible Information for People withIntellectual Disabilities: Do Symbols Really Help? Journal of Applied Researchin Intellectual Disabilities. 20, pp. 466-474. BILD Publications.Poulson, D., & Nicolle, C. (2004). Making the Internet accessible for peoplewith cognitive and communication Impairments. Universal Access in theInformation Society, 3(1), 48-56.25 26. References (contd.):Redish, J. (., & Chisnell, D. (2004). Designing Web Sites for Older Adults: AReview of Recent Literature. AARP.Rowland, C. (2010). Accessibility: The Need for Champions and Awareness inHigher 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 ofWeb Users with Lower Literacy Skills. Proceedings of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, 42. 26 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-VerlagBerlin Heidelberg.Walser, K., Quesenbery, W., & Swierenga, S. (2008). Designing for CognitiveDisabilities. 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: (n.d.). Steppingstones Project on Web Accessibility and CognitiveDisabilities in Education. Retrieved from WebAIM Web Accessibility in Mind:


View more >