Documentation:Congnitive

Documentation > Cognitive Issues

What are potential cognitive issues affecting documentation?

This page is being split into two sections; responses to the issue then additional questions with responses.

Responses to the issue.

Comment from Jim Tobias on January 4, 2007:

Lots of good data on reading level, etc. How about a standard that requires documentation to be written so that it can be understood by the users for which the product was intended? There's a problem with that, because there are always "unexpected users". But it provides at least some guidance: college level is okay for documenting a programming language, but not okay for documenting a copier.

Comment from Gregg Vanderheiden on January 6, 2007:

One caution on "intended audiences“ though. That is often used to say that things don't have to be easy to read or accessible in some way because their intended audience is xyz.

However – if doing materials for social security etc – this could be good language…

Is there some way we can say that PWD would always be in intended audience? Or something to reduce abuse of "intended”

Comment from Tom Brett on January 11, 2007:

Need to wait until have definiton of cognition before can create a standards.

Comment from Debbie Cook on January 11, 2007:

One of the challenges will be measuring anything to do with cognition. This is probably better addressed in guidance other than in requirements. For example, alternative presentations of documentation such as video may be very useful, but hardly appropriate as a requirement since some documentation doesn't present well in video. And, pictures in addition to text are very relevant in conveying operation of many but not all products.

Comment from Dawn Wilcox on January 11, 2007:

Now with the vets surviving brain injuries and more stroke survivors, perhaps there could be a alternative format for elementary level English such as the 'special English' that I heard on Voice of America years ago. That might help the English as a second language folks as well as the traditional cognitively impaired too.

Comment from Norman Robinson on January 12, 2007:

Great question! I'll try to respond.

1. Definition of "cognitive issues". I don't think we all agree or it is generally known how cognitive issues should be defined. Is this intellect? Does this involve qualifications of intelligence? What about speed of thought response? What science currently approaches communication; was content interpreted and understood? Is this Instructional Design? Is this simply agreement that we can generally apply an algorithm to content (e.g., Eight Grade Level)?

2. What functions are affected? By that I mean today we have subpart C, functional performance criteria 1194.21(a) through (f). We haven't defined what that means for use of technology by people with cognitive needs - related to the definition of cognitive issues. Can we develop language that allows a contracting officer to evaluate products accessibility for perception, attention, testing, and evaluation by the end-users?

3. Language. If you talk about the simplicity of language and complexity of language will we also involve different languages in the discussion? Sign-language is another language. Pictograms is/are another language.

I also fear our own desire to be respectful and lack of language to express some of the ideas discourages this topic to be openly discussed. For instance, no one wants to identify with not caring but how comfortable are you with discussing the need if you know a specific disability only affects .0000001 percentage of the population? That is a setup question, as I can certainly equate accessibility with improving usability and in the same way say techniques designed for .2 of the population can positively influence designs for most people, but really I think we need to quantify the need so we can prioritize our approach. People are uncomfortable and where they aren't they certainly are reserved to express an opinion. Disability is a personal and emotional subject. Cognitive issues are even more so when you don't have certainty and ease in communication.

I think I'd be most interested in anyone providing us with ways we can _programmatically determine_ any related cognitive issues. Things such as the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score (.39 x average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences)) + (11.8 x average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words)) – 15.59. This can at least show us such approaches can be tested and we can back into questions such as is it appropriate to procure E&IT that meets a certain grade-level.

Comment from William Loughborough on March 3, 2007:

A main characteristic of figuring out what to do about making materials accessible to PWD (Persons With Disability) is the stereotyping/exclusion engendered by the very act of categoriz(s)ing them (and of course "they" are "us"!).

The "ageing" are often seen as being unable to program a TV remote control and needing to seek help from a 12-year-old grand-daughter. Whether it's called "cognition" or "creeping senility" doesn't matter, what we must do is address it in new ways from new points of view. People with "cognitive disability" are NOT so easily defined as they are labeled (with the demeaning that goes with that). Although "clear/simple" is fairly easy to say, it isn't at all easy to do and the various measures based on "fog indices" or "reading level" may not be all that useful.

We must involve the people affected.

Additional questions:

Comment from David Poehlman on January 14, 2007:

The questions you rais on cognition are good ones. Are we also concerned with issues such as dislexia and processing difficulties? These will take more than grade level or actual comprehention into account.