TechMatch is a free, Web-based assessment tool that matches people with cognitive disabilities to computer technology. It was produced by Personal Technologies, LLC, apparently also known as Life Technologies, LLC.  This is the same company that makes CogLink, e-mail software for people with cognitive disabilities, which I previously reviewed.

Accessibility

The TechMatch Web site does not meet accessibility standards, as is indicated by many images with missing alternative text.  Its tool, an assessment questionnaire, is not designed to be used directly by people with cognitive disabilities.  Instead, it is intended to be used by the people who care for and about them.

Purpose

The company promotes TechMatch as offering “…clear and straight forward advice about the strengths and weaknesses of each potential technology…”.   It says its tool, which is a questionnaire, assesses factors of six areas affecting successful computer use by people with cognitive disabilities.  (The tool lists actually only five areas of questions.)  When completed, it produces a summary of the advantages and the disadvantages of each computer technology for the person being assessed.

Questionnaire

To access the questionnaire, the TechMatch Web site requires visitors to create a user name and a password.  It also requests personal information, i.e, first name, last name, postal code and the visitor’s role in relation to the person being assessed. Upon submitting the information, a verification link is sent to the e-mail address used.  No explanation is provided on the log-in form about why the questionnaire can not be completed anonymously.

There are 34 multiple-choice questions.  The following are descriptions of the sets of questions.  They ask about:

1. electronic devices and computer technologies the person uses; the difficulties experienced; and the related activities in which the person does and wants to engage.  There are also questions about Internet use.
2. the types of environments in which the person visits and lives; the level of comfort using computer technology; and the type of related support available to the person.
3. eye and hand coordination and use; the ability to carry and to use objects; and reading ability.
4. the person’s ability to plan; to learn; to follow instructions; to concentrate; to remember secret names and passwords; and to protect computers from accidental damage.
5. the person’s financial capability to buy computer technology; attitude for and motivation for new challenges; and general feeling about change.

Product

The end result was a report of suggestions for generic computing technologies: netbook, laptop, desktop, cell phone and public computing.  The remaining item on the list was Pack Drive, the company’s own product.  It is a USB Flash drive containing Internet applications designed for people with cognitive disabilities.

Personal Info Unnecessarily Requested

An option is provided to print a comprehensive report.  Choosing it produces a form.  The evaluator’s contact information is requested, along with personal information about the person being evaluated.  This includes age, date of birth and medical diagnosis.  On the form, there is a statement that the information is for inclusion on the printed report only, and will not be saved in any way.  To me, it is too risky and unnecessary to provide such information simply to obtain a comprehensive report.

Conclusion

The privacy problems are concerning.  The site has no standard privacy statement.  On its sign-up form, there is not even a simple statement that the entered e-mail address will not be sold or used for marketing purposes.

TechMatch’s goal for its assessment tool is admirable and shows promise.  It may be useful for those who do not know much about computer technology.  Yet its table of computer technologies lists only six generic options.  From this, I suspect no others are suggested by any of TechMatch’s reports. That there are so few, and that they are so similar, seems to me to be a distinction without much of a difference.

I had expected reports would choose from a database of devices and software that were related to computer- and assistive technology.  These databases, e.g., AbleData, already exist.  Had the assessment been tied to such a database, it and the effort to complete it certainly would have been more useful.

Notes

• TechMatch development was funded through NIDRR grant #H133S070096.
• No endorsement of TechMatch, Pack Drive, their manufacturer, or any of its products is intended or implied.

Coglink is e-mail software designed for use by people with intellectual disabilities.  This is a review of it.

Costs

I purchased CogLink for $49.   At the time of this writing, this is a one-time cost. There are no continuing subscription fees.  This is surprising given that a great feature of this product is toll-free, live technical support from 9 AM – 5 PM (PST).  My understanding from a conversation I had with a CogLink staff member is that the project is currently grant-funded.  This helps explain why the live technical support does not have to be funded by subscription costs.

Management

Coglink is intended to be managed by a “Helper” who installs it and provides at least some initial help through its training and use.  Helpers may log-in to a Web site to enable and to disable CogLink’s advanced features, and to set up the people, called “Buddies”, with whom its user will communicate by e-mail.  Statistics are presented on the last time the e-mail software was used and the last time an e-mail message was sent.  There is an option to receive monthly usage reports.

Interface

Coglink’s interface is clean and simple.  A text instruction always appears at the top and a list of “buddies” is always on the left.  Contextually-relevant buttons are located at the bottom. The opening screen instructs the user to “Click a name to read and send mail”.

A click presents the user with the same simple interface, but with a message text composition box on the right.

As the user types a word, a menu box of possible words appears.  The user can choose one, which is then entered into the message.  This word-prediction feature can be disabled.  A button at the bottom will speak aloud the message text at any point.  When done, the user can simply click the “Send” button or the “Cancel” button.

Conclusion

I believe CogLink is easy to use by its intended customer base.  It has many customizable-, accessibility- and safety features.

Other Versions

CogLink has “Pack”, a portable version contained on a USB drive. It also has a version called “TeenMail” with social-connection features for teens with intellectual disabilities.

Funding

Development of these products is “…supported by a National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research SBIR grant, Why Go It Alone?: The Use of Public Resources to Enhance Computer Accessibility for Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities, grant number H133S070096.” Retrieved from http://www.lifetechnologiesllc.com/products.html

Notes

For a review of the training that accompanied the Coglink e-mail software, see my blog post entitled “CogLink E-Mail for People with ID: Review of Its Training“. No endorsement is intended or implied for CogLink.

Coglink is e-mail software designed for use by people with intellectual disabilities.  This is a review of the training that accompanies it.  The next blog post will be a review of the e-mail software itself.

Installation

CogLink arrived on one CD for the training software and one for the e-mail software.  A nice touch is they were labeled with my first name.

Both the training- and the e-mail software are Java-based.  The CogLink Web site says they require Windows XP, but I found they run just fine on Windows Vista. Installation of the training software took what most people would consider to be a long time.  After a little while, an animation does appear, presumably to indicate activity is occurring, but there is no progress bar typical of software-installation programs.

Interface Attributes

The training had three sections: how to use a mouse, how to use a keyboard and how to use the e-mail software.  Each was animated and narrated.  Their screens had simple, written instructions at the tops.  At the bottoms were two buttons, one for restarting the lesson and one for returning to the main menu.  The interface was free of distracting and/or irrelevant elements.

Lesson Interactivity

Lessons required responses from the learner for each step.  Sessions had multiple practice instances.  Feedback occurred via voice- and written prompts. Most correct responses were followed by a visual- and an audio prompt that simply said, “Correct”.  The consequences for incorrect responses were basically a brief prompt that said, “Not quite”, and a repeated instruction to elicit a correct response.

It was evident the lessons were designed to limit mistake frequency.  Much of the time, the software did not react at all to mistakes, but only to correct responses.  This is good practice.

In the mouse training, an intentional mistake by me was recognized by the software as a correct response.  This is antithetical to the foundation of errorless learning, an instructional technique upon which the training is supposed to be based.  As well, at least one lesson included an instruction on a mistake not to make.  Within the field of applied behavior analysis, this is considered an inadvisable training technique.

Accessibility

The training software does not appear designed to be used with assistive technology, such as screen readers.  However, I judge it accessible to its target population.  In addition to the accessibility attributes mentioned above, it uses simple language, large fonts and contextually-relevant imagery.

Conclusion

The training provides instruction and practice for the most basic skills needed to use the e-mail software.  It was a good choice to include lessons on using a mouse and a keyboard.  Overall, I judge the training to be a fine attempt at helping people with intellectual disabilities to learn how to use the e-mail software, and one that is accessible to them.

Note: This is a follow-up to my previous post entitled “E-Mail Software for People with Cognitive Disabilities“. No endorsement is intended or implied for CogLink.