Hi Jutta, Thanks for the feedback. I agree that it would be better to categorise according to needs, or as you recommended to required resources (as this is in line with our states and contexts). I will rework the document to reflect this. Dana
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) < [email protected]> wrote: > I know we are generalizing but can we not categorize people as > impairments? This goes against all our design principles. if we want broad > generic categories it would be better to create required characteristics of > resources that we need to think about e.g., requires alternative to audio, > requires enhancement of audio, etc. > > Jutta > > Jutta Treviranus > Professor and Director > Inclusive Design Research Centre and Inclusive Design Institute > OCAD University > > On 2013-02-06, at 11:26 AM, Dana Ayotte <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > I have started a page on the FLOE Wiki where we are developing our > use-cases for Cloud4All. Please take a look and provide any feedback you > may have. > > Thanks, > > Dana > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] > > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, > > see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work > >
_______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
