[Accessforall] Needs & Preferences call today at 12:00 UTC

Jim Tobias tobias at inclusive.com
Thu Jun 28 19:07:20 UTC 2012


Chiming in late on this.
 
I think these unaware, non-exploratory users are the majority, and the large
majority of those currently not using technology very effectively, so we
could justify most of our efforts going in this direction. Highly aware and
effectively exploratory, early adopter-type users are already doing pretty
well, and keep doing better on their own as technology evolves. So amen to
your idea, Matthew.
 
At the other extreme, a Clippy approach (e.g., "You're making a lot of
typing errors - do you want to expand the size of the keys on this
touchscreen? or "It looks like you're usually increasing the font size above
the level you set in your PNP - do you want to increase it permanently?")
may put some people off.
 
This deserves a lot of modeling, demoing, and user testing.
 
***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.908.907.2387 v/sms
skype jimtobias
From: accessforall-bounces at fluidproject.org
[mailto:accessforall-bounces at fluidproject.org] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:48 PM
To: Liddy Nevile; Matthew Atkinson; Accessforall at fluidproject. org; SP1 List
Member; SP2 at cloud4all.info
Subject: Re: [Accessforall] Needs & Preferences call today at 12:00 UTC
 
 
I think that the current architecture can easily support this kind of
analysis and use case.  BUT it would depend on getting through the GPII
ethics committee for use of User Preference Data.   I THINK that it would be
fine.    I am promoting the idea that no user specific date mining etc be
allowed. But that aggregate information that meets certain tests for
preserving anonymity be allowed.  This I think would pass as long as we have
enough users and data. 



 
On 12/06/2012, at 9:31 PM, Matthew Atkinson wrote:
 
2. Stepping back, there seems to be a use-case for the match maker
architecture that I am not sure is yet supported...
 
Imagine you want to aggregate users' data (anonymously of course) so that it
would be possible to, e.g., say "Users on this OS and using this application
tended to like the following GPII preferences." I think this could be very
helpful in bootstrapping people and solving a key problem:
 
  People are often not aware of, or are able to discover, adaptations that
could help them.
 
The work of the likes of David Sloan and Peter Gregor at Dundee, as well as
many others at other institutions, shows this up as a key issue.  People
sometimes assume that ICTs are not as flexible as they are, because they are
used to inflexible real-world analogues.  Or perhaps they are too focussed
on what they are doing and instead attempt to "muddle through" rather than
search for means (GPII preferences, micro-ATs or classic ATs) that may help
them in their task.
 
Therefore my question is: would the current architecture (as per the wiki)
support such central/federated storage of user data and therefore
aggregating it in order to make such suggestions, or is this something you
are going to move on to specifying, or is it perhaps simply out of scope at
this point?
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/accessforall/attachments/20120628/0264d536/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accessforall mailing list