Changes for page Inclusive Design

Last modified by Pierre Bongrand on 2022/04/05 20:56

From version Icon 9.1 Icon
edited by Haoran Wang
on 2022/03/14 21:34
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 2.1 Icon
edited by Pierre Bongrand
on 2022/03/14 16:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.haoranwang
1 +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. Cognitive
14 +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 -Our design was already made for people with dementia. However, this lecture and the feedback from the presentation of the previous week helped us to consider two more 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 -