Discussion - Revision history

Jjh at 21:20, 14 April 2008

2008-04-14T21:20:06Z

Jjh: /* Some limiations remain with web maps */

2008-01-13T18:34:44Z

‎Some limiations remain with web maps

Jjh at 18:34, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T18:34:22Z

Jjh at 18:26, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T18:26:33Z

Jjh: first stab

2007-09-21T17:17:36Z

first stab

New page

Returning to the questions posed at the beginning of this chapter, to what extent is it possible
through technology to improve accessibility and usability for those with lower literacy levels?
We have shown it is possible to design interfaces that reduce the cognitive burden on
consultees, compared to traditional questionnaires. This is consistent with a commonly stated
principle of human-computer interface design: making the interface consistent with the ways the user thinks about the problem. Instead of forcing people to translate in their head from
questions, to their experience, and back into written answers, let them work with a visualisation
that mirrors their mental model. If a consultation is about the location of something, then a map
is a natural representation of that. Although computer maps have been used in consultations on
planning issues for over a decade, few consulting bodies have used them in small consultations,
because of the cost of preparing the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). But now that lowcost
GIS is easily available, from Google maps to the open source GRASS toolkit, such
techniques are becoming more feasible. It only took a couple of days for Ashish Italiya to
design a CommunityWalk map for this test, and populate it with data and photographs.
Nevertheless, even our map still requires some literacy. Users need to be able to recognise place
names (not too difficult) and then type in short comments (rather harder). For a less literate
consultee the interface needs to provide information through more photographs (or drawings)
and sound (e.g. click on a location and the site plays a recording of the information and what
you have to do). To enter information, there would need to be a choice of pictures to click on, or
a way of recording voice and storing it. Such approaches turn the interaction with the
consultation into something like a short segment of playing a computer game. There have been
computer games designed to support e-democracy.49 The next challenge is interaction design to
engage those most excluded by current consultation techniques (both traditional and electronic),
but that would involve an entire research programme in itself.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Instead of forcing people to translate in their head from questions, to their experience, and back into written answers, let them work with a visualisation that mirrors their mental model. If a consultation is about the location of something, then a map is a natural representation of that.
-===Liimited application===
+===Limited application===
 Although computer maps have been used in consultations on planning issues for over a decade, few consulting bodies have used them in small consultations, because of the cost of preparing the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). But now that lowcost GIS is easily available, from [http://www.google.com/map/ Google maps] to the open source [http://grass.itc.it/announces/announce_grass623.html GRASS] toolkit, such techniques are becoming more feasible. It only took a couple of days for Ashish Italiya to design a CommunityWalk map for this test, and populate it with data and photographs.
-===Some limiations remain with web maps===
+===Some limitations remain with web maps===
 Nevertheless, even our map still requires some literacy.

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 13 January 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Users need to be able to recognise place names (not too difficult) and then type in short comments (rather harder). For a less literate consultee the interface needs to provide information through more photographs (or drawings) and sound (e.g. click on a location and the site plays a recording of the information and what you have to do). To enter information, there would need to be a choice of pictures to click on, or a way of recording voice and storing it. Such approaches turn the interaction with the consultation into something like a short segment of playing a computer game.		Users need to be able to recognise place names (not too difficult) and then type in short comments (rather harder). For a less literate consultee the interface needs to provide information through more photographs (or drawings) and sound (e.g. click on a location and the site plays a recording of the information and what you have to do). To enter information, there would need to be a choice of pictures to click on, or a way of recording voice and storing it. Such approaches turn the interaction with the consultation into something like a short segment of playing a computer game.

−	There have been computer games (See [http://www.demgames.org/ ~~Dem Games~~]) designed to support e-democracy. The next challenge is interaction design to engage those most excluded by current consultation techniques (both traditional and electronic), but that would involve an entire research programme in itself.	+	There have been computer games (See [http://www.demgames.org/ demgames]) designed to support e-democracy. The next challenge is interaction design to engage those most excluded by current consultation techniques (both traditional and electronic), but that would involve an entire research programme in itself.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 '''To what extent is it possible through technology to improve accessibility and usability for those with lower literacy levels?'''
-We have shown it is possible to design interfaces that reduce the cognitive burden on consultees, compared to traditional questionnaires. This is consistent with a commonly stated principle of human-computer interface design: ''making the interface consistent with the ways the user thinks about the problem''.
+We have shown it is possible to design interfaces that reduce the cognitive burden on consultees, compared to [http://www.pbni.org.uk/annex-a-questionnaire.pdf traditional questionnaires]. This is consistent with a commonly stated principle of human-computer interface design: ''making the interface consistent with the ways the user thinks about the problem''.
 Instead of forcing people to translate in their head from questions, to their experience, and back into written answers, let them work with a visualisation that mirrors their mental model. If a consultation is about the location of something, then a map is a natural representation of that.
 ===Liimited application===
 Although computer maps have been used in consultations on planning issues for over a decade, few consulting bodies have used them in small consultations, because of the cost of preparing the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). But now that lowcost GIS is easily available, from [http://www.google.com/map/ Google maps] to the open source [http://grass.itc.it/announces/announce_grass623.html GRASS] toolkit, such techniques are becoming more feasible. It only took a couple of days for Ashish Italiya to design a CommunityWalk map for this test, and populate it with data and photographs.
-===Some limiations===
+===Some limiations remain with web maps===
 Nevertheless, even our map still requires some literacy.
-Users need to be able to recognise place names (not too difficult) and then type in short comments (rather harder). For a less literate consultee the interface needs to provide information through more photographs (or drawings) and sound (e.g. click on a location and the site plays a recording of the information and what you have to do). To enter information, there would need to be a choice of pictures to click on, or a way of recording voice and storing it. Such approaches turn the interaction with the consultation into something like a short segment of playing a computer game. There have been computer games designed to support e-democracy. The next challenge is interaction design to engage those most excluded by current consultation techniques (both traditional and electronic), but that would involve an entire research programme in itself.
+Users need to be able to recognise place names (not too difficult) and then type in short comments (rather harder). For a less literate consultee the interface needs to provide information through more photographs (or drawings) and sound (e.g. click on a location and the site plays a recording of the information and what you have to do). To enter information, there would need to be a choice of pictures to click on, or a way of recording voice and storing it. Such approaches turn the interaction with the consultation into something like a short segment of playing a computer game.