![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
|
"Human-Centered Public Transportation Systems for Persons with Cognitive Disabilities - Challenges and Insights for Participatory Design" 1. What did you find ... 1.1. interesting about the article? I was amazed by the diversity of the design participants. I believe that without the diverse group, the detail of findings would not have been interesting. I agree that the "essential navigation artifacts" were truly the necessary list to use any kind of public transportation. 1.2. not interesting about the article? I was a bit disappointed by not knowing the details of the disabilities of the participants or target disability group. Also, I was disappointed by not being provided thorough results of the prototype testing. 2. What do you consider the main message of the article? This article described the new technology and development processes to help persons with cognitive disabilities use public transportation. Finding or creating a solution for a "universe of one" involved many detailed processes and difficult tasks to accomplish. 3. Are themes discussed in the article which you would like to know more about? I would like to know more details of what were the limitations of their search domain and details of successful participants. I was a bit frustrated not knowing who were the "Instructors" in the "Problems in Transportation Systems for People with Cognitive Disabilities" section and what their qualifications were. 4. What did you find interesting about the "CLever" system? During the demo, I found the most interesting aspect of the "CLever" system was the real time monitoring of the participant, including finding out the location of the participant and listening to the instructions from the help device, hand held PDA. 5. Do you know of other papers, ideas, and systems which are closely related to the article and the "CLever" system? I think some luxury cars like Cadillac have the GPS system imbedded in console, which assist you in reaching your destination, and telling you where you are at all turns, and where you need go next. It is a wonderful tool for some people whom are directionally challenged. 6. What do the article and the associated system say about ... 6.1. design? The primary steps before designing were understanding and analyzing the current public transportation system. To design a "universe of one" requires many customizing of details and needs of each cognitive disability person. 6.2. learning? Analyzing and evaluating current public system helped the design group to describe findings and issues. Since we usually live a relatively normal life, we generally do not give a second thought in order to execute a routine action. But in order to guide and to teach a person with cognitive disabilities, the designing the CLever needed to be broken in finer details. 6.3. collaboration? Many different groups of people collaborated to achieve the goals of the project. The diverse findings were the evidence/results of good collaboration. 6.4. innovative media to support for these activities? Using GPS system, real time computational data, and 3D display were very helpful media tools. These technologies have been improved significantly in the past 15 years. 7. Do you have any ideas how this research could/should be extended (based on your own knowledge and experience)? From my experience, it would be helpful to include mixed transportation methods in their research. For example, this research could be expanded to studying transfers between bus and light rail or getting dropped off or picked up by someone (i.e.> caregiver or parents) at a park-and-ride. I personally find that interchanging transportation methods can be confusing and difficult, even for someone without cognitive disabilities. |
