Accessible and Assistive ICT

VERITAS

Virtual and Augmented Environments and Realistic User Interactions To achieve Embedded Accessibility DesignS

247765

Consolidated Peer Review Report
Deliverable No. / D1.1.3 / Deliverable Title / UCD design revision manual
Workpackage No. / W1.1 / Workpackage Title / User groups, benchmarking and the industrial needs
Activity No. / A1.1.4 / Activity Title / VERITAS UCD methodology
Deliverable Authors / UNEW (Stephen Lindsay, Anja Thieme), UoS (Thomas Grill), UPM (Maria de las Mercedes Fernandez-Rodriguez), ATOS (Andrew McDonough), COAT (Marcel Delahaye)
Quality Manager / Evangelos Bekiaris (CERTH/HIT)
Date of Review Document / 04/11/2011
File Name / D1.1.3_ Consolidated peer review report.doc

PROCEDURES USED FOR PEER REVIEW

The VERITAS Consortium uses the Peer Review process for its internal quality assurance for deliverables to assure consistency and high standard for documented project results.

The Peer Review is processed individually by selected reviewers. The allocated time for the review is about two weeks. The author of the document has the final responsibility to collect the comments and suggestions from the Peer Reviewers and decide what changes to the document and actions are to be undertaken.

Reviewers:

External expert / -
1st Peer Reviewer / Juan Luis Villalar (UPM),
2nd Peer Reviewer / Cecilia Ruspa (CRF),
Quality Assurance Manager / Evangelos Bekiaris –CERTH/HIT

Overall Peer Review Result:

Deliverable is:

Fully accepted / Accepted with reservation / Rejected unless modified as suggested / Fully rejected

Overall rating of the Deliverable

Excellent / Very Good / Good / Poor / Very poor

COMMENTS OF PEER REVIEWERS

General Comments

Document is complete, the only comment I have is that the concepts are repeated several times, too much in my opinion. The second part structured in tables referring to Veritas project specifically is more effective. See also my comments in the text.

Specific comments
Relevance /

Very good summary of the UCD methodologies.

Accepted
Response to user needs / It could be more effective if less repetitive, especially in the first part. To be more accessible it should be more handy.
The tabling system at the start of the document is meant to serve as a quick guide but we will re-work the document summary and introduction somewhat to make sure that it points to relevant parts and gives users a better insight into using the manual
Methodological framework soundness / Good. Very good literature references.
Accepted
Quality of achievements / Good in the second part were the UCD methods are applied to Veritas cases. The first part is too long.
The details in the first part may be necessary to allow people an in-depth understanding of their work domain
Quality of presentation / OK
Accepted
Deliverable Layout/Spelling/Format /

No comment

Accepted

COMMENTS OF PEER REVIEWERS

General Comments

Deliverable contents are very thorough and it also has a high innovation level, thanks to the reported enhancement to the waterfall model, and to the big impact reported by partners.

Specific comments
Relevance /

The deliverable is fully relevant, essential indeed.

Accepted
Response to user needs / The deliverable is very consistent with its objective and with user needs, giving a very huge view about User Centred Design.
Accepted
Methodological framework soundness / The methodological framework is very sound, particularly in chapter 1.4, where all the creation process is analyzed and detailed.
Accepted
Quality of achievements / The quality of achievement is very high.
Accepted
Quality of presentation / The quality of presentation is good, even if more care in layout is needed:
-Style of heading: i.e. 1.3 has the same style than 1.3.1.1
We don’t seem to have the same issue, the styles appear distinct on all machines we have viewed the document on and in pdf form. Nevertheless we have looked at headings throughout the document to find errors.
Deliverable Layout/Spelling/Format /

The English prose is a bit rough and convolved. Please check again the document forEnglish style, usage, and punctuation.

-Check the header of the document “Pu”. Is it correct?

-Page 42: “. A small number of users is already sufficient to indentify and analyse many problems and their causes of a design or development in relatively short time.” Change “is” for “are”.

-Page 47: “It is a method to ensure that the design and/or functionality of the system or product is compliant with industry standards.” . Change “is” for “are”.
-Page 59:” The information provided by the interviews are non-statistical and should be carefully analyse by professionals in the field. “ Change “are” for “is”. Change “analyse ” for “analysed”.
-Page 82. “They act as if the interface was actually built and they (in the role of a typical user) was working through the tasks”. Change “was” for “were”
-Page 101.” But for most office productivity applications. half a second isn't really important.”. Delete the point in the middle of the statement.
-Page 102. “There is a number of different terms you'll hear in conjunction with prototyping methods. Change “is” for “are”.
-Page 142. “It is recommended that potentially objectionable, threatening, or very intrusive questioning shall be limited, but not necessarily eliminated,.” Delete the coma before the final point.
-Page 167.” This finding suggests that the type of activity being performed and the partner performing the activity need to be considered when determining the UCD method which is to be applied rather than solely considering the type of finding that we wish to develop.” Add “is” before “being performed”
-Page 171. Delete the double point at the end of the firs paragraph.
-
All suggested changes will be made