Accessible and Assistive ICT

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

247765

Consolidated Peer Review Report

Deliverable No. D4.5.3 Deliverable Title White Paper on VERITAS vision: Towards embedded accessibility designs

Workpackage No. 4.5 Workpackage Title

Guidelines, standardization activities and policies recommendations

Activity No. 4.5.2 Activity Title Contribution to standardization bodies and policies promotion

Deliverable Authors Konstantinos Moustakas (CERTH/ITI), Konstantinos Votis (CERTH/ITI), Dimitrios Tzovaras (CERTH/ITI), Mauro Da Lio (UNITN)

Quality Manager Evangelos Bekiaris (CERTH/HIT)

Date of Review Document 20/07/2010

File Name VERITAS_D4.5.3_Consolidated peer review report

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 Antonella Arca (UPM)

2nd Peer Reviewer Stavroula Ntoa (FORTH)

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

The deliverable shows in a thorough way the current problems related to product accessibility towards the VERITAS vision.

This document represents the white paper as well an important dissemination means. In this way the executive summary should contain a high-level summary about VERITAS on one page. Maybe a simple overview figure should be included.

Specific comments

Relevance The document fully serves the purpose of a white paper.

Author’s response

-

Response to user needs

The deliverable describes in a clear and readable way the useful information to understand the current accessibility gaps and how they are dealt with within VERITAS.

Author’s response

-

Methodological framework soundness

The methodological framework of the deliverable is generally sound.

Author’s response

-

Quality of achievements

The quality of achievements is good. It should be important to insert some references in the information inserted in the introduction (i.e.:” The lowest estimate, based on the currently defined disablement categories, estimates their total number at around 74 Million persons”.) in order to emphasize the importance of the topic.

Author’s response

The deliverable has been modified accordingly. New references have been added

Quality of presentation In general the quality of achievement is very good.

Author’s response

-

Deliverable Layout/Spelling/Format

The following changes should be implemented:

- Update the table of content

- Page 5: Line 2. Change the word “important” for “essential”.

- Page 10: Line33. Delete one final point.

- Page 16: Line 6. Change “designers” for “designer’s”.

- Page 19. Line 42. Change “cognitive” for “cognitive”.

Author’s response

The deliverable has been corrected accordingly.

COMMENTS OF PEER REVIEWERS

General Comments

The Deliverable D4.5.3 “White Paper: Towards embedded accessibility designs” discusses the issue of accessibility in the design and development of mainstream ICT and non-ICT products, highlights current accessibility gaps and illustrates how these are addressed within the VERITAS project. Furthermore, the deliverable indicates potential forthcoming research activities that may emerge and build upon the results of VERITAS.

In summary, it is well written, with clear focus and objectives. Most of the specific comments provided below aim to enhance its comprehensiveness for the reader’s benefit.

Specific comments

Relevance Highly relevant

Author’s response

-

Response to user needs

n/a

Author’s response

-

Methodological framework soundness

The methodological framework presented is sound

Author’s response

-

Quality of achievements

Very good

Author’s response

-

Quality of presentation The deliverable is well structured and easy to follow.

However, please note that there is an inconsistency with the figures’ numbering. In more detail, there are two figures numbered 4, namely the figure presenting VERITAS architecture (p. 11) and the figure illustrating the VERITAS User/Task Modeling Methodology (p. 13). The figures’ numbering also jumps from 5

to 7, to 9.

Furthermore, the introduction section might need some revisions so as to be more coherent and straightforward to the reader. Some examples of points that need to be revisited or further clarified are provided below:

The third paragraph of the introduction section discusses the development of mainstream non-ICT products and services and the lack of structured accessibility guidelines. In this context the sentence “Thus it is a technological challenge to provide senior citizens with systems that could foster the different facets in the perception of the quality of life” needs to be further clarified. Furthermore, in the same paragraph, it is mentioned that “these systems… should leverage the immersion in the environments”. This phrase is also unclear. The authors refer to virtual or physical environments? In the first case, please clarify how virtual environments are related to non-ICT products and services, or provide an illustrative example. In the second case, it is not clear what could constitute an immersion to a physical environment.

The phrase “the agents and devices are aware of their environment, their location and also their abilities and disabilities” could be revised so as to clarify the meaning of the word disabilities in this sentence. Since it refers to agents (non-human as indicated by the sentence context) and devices, disabilities could be substituted with the word limitations or another synonym.

In page 7 it is mentioned that designers and developers are unaware of the accessibility barriers that are generated when introducing a new product to the AmI market. As an AmI market has not been established yet, authors could reconsider this statement and discuss

the same problem under a more generic perspective.

Furthermore, a list of abbreviations could seem useful to readers, including terms such as E&D population, the VIRSIM middleware, etc.

Authors could also consider providing references when referring to information regarding statistical facts (e.g. the total number of disabled persons in the EU) or research efforts and results (e.g. the ISTAG ambient intelligence space, or the WHO ICF framework). References could also be considered when making bold statements, such as the statement that in the domain of building design guidelines may be wrong (p. 5), or that virtual user models can guarantee that the developments will be accessible for a vast percentage of the disabled population (p.7)

Finally, it would be useful for readers if additional information was provided in the last paragraph, in order to summarize how the VERITAS project results will lead to the next generation of research on accessibility regarding AmI environments supporting the seamless roaming of individuals and being aware of their real-time accessibility needs.

Author’s response

The deliverable has been corrected accordingly wherever necessary, based on the aforementioned comments.

Deliverable Layout/Spelling/Format

The deliverable is well written, however some suggestions regarding some lexical issues and mistypes are provided:

[p.6]: “either designing for the AmI or not” could be rephrased as “either designing for AmI environments / applications or not”. The term “the AmI” is also mentioned in p. 19 and could be rephrased as well.

[p.11], Figure 4, VERITAS architecture:

The users with disabilities cloud is labeled “Rear Users with Disabilities” instead of “Real Users with Disabilities”

[p.12], last paragraph of section 3.1: “while results are provide through EARL based reporting” provided

Author’s response

The deliverable has been corrected accordingly