Changes for page Inclusive Design
Last modified by Pierre Bongrand on 2022/04/05 20:56
From version
9.1


edited by Haoran Wang
on 2022/03/14 21:34
on 2022/03/14 21:34
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version
2.1


edited by Pierre Bongrand
on 2022/03/14 16:06
on 2022/03/14 16:06
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. haoranwang1 +XWiki.PierreBongrand - Content
-
... ... @@ -1,45 +1,33 @@ 1 -Inclusive design is a design process in which a product, service, or environment is designed to be usable for as many people as possible, particularly groups who are traditionally excluded from being able to use an interface or navigate an environment. [[Wikipedia>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_design#:~:text=Inclusive%20design%20is%20a%20design,interface%20or%20navigate%20an%20environment.]] 2 - 3 -For our case, it is necessary to have a universal design that is inclusive to a variety of people that may have different handicaps: 4 - 5 -1. Perceptual 6 - 1 +We need to come up with a universal design that is inclusive to a variety of people that may have different handicap: 2 +- Perceptual: 7 7 * Blind 8 8 * Deaf 5 +- Motor 6 +* 9 9 10 -2. Motor 8 +- Cognitive 9 +*Dementia 10 +*Down's syndrome 11 +*Autism 11 11 12 -* List item 13 -* List item 14 14 15 - 3.Cognitive14 +There is no Generic "disabled user". 16 16 17 -* Dementia 18 -* Down's Syndrome 19 -* Autism 16 +Is our solution economically accessible (Can users afford our design?)? If yes, how so? 20 20 18 +In our case, this lecture and the feedback received during the presentation made us think about patients with hearing impairment/deaf. Secondly, we also measured wether or not this solution is affordable to patient. 21 21 22 -There is no generic "disabled user". Creating different personas and scenarios helped us to consider a more robust user. 23 23 24 - Ourdesign was alreadymade forpeoplewith dementia.However,this lectureandthefeedbackfromthepresentation of theprevious week helped us to considertwomore general cases:21 +== Improvements of our design: Deaf patient == 25 25 26 - 27 -=== Deaf patient === 28 - 29 29 Use of redundant information leveraging both audio and visual channels of communications between Pepper and the PwD 30 30 31 31 32 -== =Price ===26 +== Improvements of our design: Price == 33 33 34 34 Need to do the maths, because it might be that Pepper cost averages out. 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 -We paid additional details to not making wrong assumptions about our users. By not stereotyping, not patronising or stigmatising the patients. 39 39 40 --> Examples? 41 41 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 -