new d206 1 best ways to engage customers overtime final · 2015. 3. 24. · ecosystem...

Ecosystem infrastructure for smart and personalised inclusion and PROSPERITY for ALL stakeholders

D206.1 Best ways to engage customers overtime

Project Acronym Prosperity4All

Grant Agreement number FP7‐610510

Deliverable number D206.1

Work package number WP206

Work package title Sustainable Meaningful Consumers‐

Developer Connections (Pull vs Push)

Authors ILUNION Accessibility, studies and projects

(Technosite)

Status Final Version

Dissemination Level Public

Delivery Date 31/01/2015

Number of Pages 73


http://www.prosperity4all.eu/ 2

Abstract

This document is the first deliverable of work package 206; Sustainable Meaningful

Consumers‐Developer Connections (Pull vs Push), which intends to give a complete and

detailed review of the existing tools and procedures to engage users in the whole cycle of

developing accessible solutions. Apart from the intention of being a full account of tools and

procedures, this report draws a baseline for future P4all developments. These developments

will build up the tools necessary for ending up with a dynamic ecosystem within the GPIII

framework.

Keyword List

[Relation users‐developers, user engagement, production of accessible software, GPIII]

Version History

Revision Date Author Organisation Description

1 28/12/2014 Victor Manuel

Hernández

TECH Initial draft

2 07/01/2015 Ignacio Madrid TECH Correction1

3 08/01/2015 Iván Carmona TECH Correction2


Hernández

TECH First Version forwarded to Peer

Review

5 19/01/2015 Mark Ferguson Clevercherry First peer review

6 26/01/2015 Vivian Vimarlund Jönköping

International Business

School (JIBS)

Second peer review


Hernández

TECH Final Version



Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 8

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10

2 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Desk Research ............................................................................................................ 16

2.2 Virtual Ethnography ................................................................................................... 17

2.3 Observation ............................................................................................................... 17

2.4 In‐depth interviews ................................................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Profiles ................................................................................................................ 21

2.4.2 Ethical Issues ...................................................................................................... 22

2.4.2.1 Informed Consent ....................................................................................... 23

2.4.2.2 Data handling and privacy .......................................................................... 23

2.4.2.3 Personal Safety and Accessibility ................................................................ 23

2.4.2.4 Compensation ............................................................................................. 24

3 Results of Components (Virtual Ethnography and Desk Research) .......................... 25

3.1 Validation ideas portals ............................................................................................. 25

3.1.1 Innocentive ......................................................................................................... 25

3.1.2 Yet2 ..................................................................................................................... 26

3.1.3 Ninesigma and NineSights ................................................................................ 27

3.1.4 Grabcad .............................................................................................................. 27

3.1.5 AutoHarvest........................................................................................................ 27

3.1.6 Pickfu .................................................................................................................. 27

3.1.7 Ideas4all.............................................................................................................. 27

3.1.8 Hackforgood ....................................................................................................... 28

3.1.9 Nuez .................................................................................................................... 28

3.1.10 Uninnova Network ............................................................................................. 28

3.2 User groups ................................................................................................................ 28

3.2.1 Yahoo and Google groups .................................................................................. 29

3.2.1.1 Access for the blind ..................................................................................... 29



3.2.1.2 Tifloclub Hispania ........................................................................................ 29

3.2.1.3 DEAF‐UK ..................................................................................................... 30

3.2.1.4 Disabiltiy PC Tech ....................................................................................... 30

3.2.1.5 Sordos, hipoacusicos juntos ........................................................................ 30

3.2.1.6 Lisorci .......................................................................................................... 30

3.2.1.7 Apple Vis ..................................................................................................... 30

3.2.2 Audio/Video‐chats .............................................................................................. 31

3.2.3 Quora .................................................................................................................. 31

3.2.4 Social Network Groups ....................................................................................... 31

3.3 Crowdfunding & Crowdsourcing ............................................................................... 32

3.3.1 Kickstarter .......................................................................................................... 33

3.3.2 Indiegogo ............................................................................................................ 33

3.3.3 RocketHub .......................................................................................................... 33

3.3.4 CofundOS ............................................................................................................ 34

3.4 Developer´s Communities ......................................................................................... 34

3.4.1 Github.com ......................................................................................................... 34

3.4.2 bitbucket ............................................................................................................ 35

3.4.3 Sourceforge ........................................................................................................ 36

3.4.4 Stackoverflow ..................................................................................................... 36

3.4.5 Ux.Stackexchange ............................................................................................... 37

3.4.6 nscodecenter.com .............................................................................................. 37

3.4.7 Android Fora ....................................................................................................... 38

3.5 Evaluation & user feedback tools .............................................................................. 39

3.5.1 Tender ................................................................................................................ 39

3.5.2 GetSatisfaction ................................................................................................... 40

3.5.3 Colabo ................................................................................................................. 40

3.5.4 Helpshift ............................................................................................................. 40

3.5.5 Apptentive .......................................................................................................... 40

3.5.6 Morae ................................................................................................................. 41



3.5.7 LiveLook .............................................................................................................. 41

3.5.8 Open VULab ........................................................................................................ 42

3.5.9 Skype .................................................................................................................. 43

3.5.10 ClickTale Beta ..................................................................................................... 44

3.5.11 UZ Self‐Serve Edition .......................................................................................... 44

3.5.12 WebEffective ...................................................................................................... 45

3.5.13 m‐pathy .............................................................................................................. 45

3.5.14 ChalkMark .......................................................................................................... 46

3.5.15 SMT (Simple Mouse Tracking) ............................................................................ 47

3.5.16 Loop11 ................................................................................................................ 47

3.6 Analysis of Tools results ............................................................................................. 47

4 Observation and In‐Depth interviews results ......................................................... 50

4.1 Guadalinfo Centres Results ....................................................................................... 50

4.1.1 Facilitators .......................................................................................................... 51

4.2 Interviews in FSC ........................................................................................................ 52

4.3 Needs ......................................................................................................................... 53

4.4 Navigation and use patterns ..................................................................................... 55

4.5 Challenges and obstacles ........................................................................................... 56

5 Personas, Scenarios and Requirements for Prototyping ......................................... 58

5.1 Personas..................................................................................................................... 58

5.1.1 Individuals at Organisations ............................................................................... 58

5.1.2 Users and Carers (relatives) ............................................................................... 59

5.1.3 Advanced users .................................................................................................. 59

5.1.4 Software Developers .......................................................................................... 59

5.2 Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 59

5.2.1 Scenario A‐YouTube for colorbind App .............................................................. 59

5.2.2 Scenario B‐Capturing Accessibility Bugs ............................................................ 60

5.2.3 Scenario C‐Looking for haptic communication developers ............................... 60

5.2.4 Scenario D‐Augmented reality for work ............................................................ 60



5.2.5 Scenario E‐Object recognition app ..................................................................... 60

5.3 Requirements ............................................................................................................ 60

6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 63

7 Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 64

8 Annex ..................................................................................................................... 65

8.1 Online Ethnography selected material ...................................................................... 65

8.1.1 Testing input ....................................................................................................... 65

8.1.2 User input and ideas validation .......................................................................... 66

8.1.3 Crowdfunding input ........................................................................................... 68

8.1.4 User engagement input ...................................................................................... 68

8.2 Inquiry mail ................................................................................................................ 70

8.3 Informed Consent ...................................................................................................... 70

8.4 Interview Script .......................................................................................................... 71

8.5 Observation items ..................................................................................................... 72

List of Tables

Table 1: Deliverable Objectives ................................................................................................ 10

Table 2: Techniques related to objectives ............................................................................... 15

Table 3: User Profiles ............................................................................................................... 21

Table 4: Social Network groups of different disabilities .......................................................... 32

Table 5: Needs Synthesis .......................................................................................................... 54

Table 6: Navigation and use patterns synthesis....................................................................... 55

Table 7: Challenges, obstacles and barriers synthesis ............................................................. 57

Table 8: Requirements table .................................................................................................... 61

Table 9: Virtual ethnography material (testing input) ............................................................. 65

Table 10: Virtual ethnography material (user input and ideas validation) ............................. 66

Table 11: Virtual ethnography material (Crowdfunding input) .............................................. 68

Table 12: Virtual ethnography material (user engagement input) ......................................... 68



Table 13: Observation items table ........................................................................................... 72

List of Figures

Figure 1: Traditional flow between users and developers ....................................................... 11

Figure 2 Actions flow in the user and development connection ............................................. 12

Figure 3 Relation of actions covered and intended components to be developed ................. 13

Figure 4 Triangulation paradigm of research techniques ....................................................... 16

Figure 5 Picture of Cartama Guadalinfo Centre during observations ...................................... 20

Figure 6 Innocentive Screenshot .............................................................................................. 26

Figure 7 Github screenshot ...................................................................................................... 35

Figure 8 Bitbucket Screenshot ................................................................................................. 35

Figure 9 Sourceforge screenshot ............................................................................................. 36

Figure 10 Stackoverflow screenshot ........................................................................................ 37

Figure 11 Nscodecenter screenshot ......................................................................................... 38

Figure 12 Android Forum screenshot ....................................................................................... 39

Figure 13 Morae screenshot .................................................................................................... 41

Figure 14 LiveLook screenshot ................................................................................................. 41

Figure 15 VULab screenshot ..................................................................................................... 43

Figure 16 Skype screenshot ...................................................................................................... 43

Figure 17 ClickTale screenshot ................................................................................................. 44

Figure 18 UZ self‐serve testing screenshot .............................................................................. 44

Figure 19 WebEffective screenshot ......................................................................................... 45

Figure 20 M‐pathy screenshot ................................................................................................. 46

Figure 21 ChalkMark screenshot .............................................................................................. 46

Figure 22 Simple Mouse Tracking screenshot ......................................................................... 47

Figure 23 Picture during an observation in Cártama .............................................................. 50



Executive Summary

Scope: This document is the first deliverable of work package 206; Sustainable Meaningful

Consumers‐Developer Connections (Pull vs Push), which intends to give a complete and

detailed review of the existing tools and procedures to engage users in the whole cycle of

developing accessible solutions within the GPII scheme. This initial effort will determine the

components developed in further tasks and activities.

Methodology: The methodology used was a triangulation of the following techniques;

virtual ethnography, desk research, observations and in‐depth interviews. Virtual

ethnography and desk research was mainly used in order to capture what developers think

and use in order to engage customers. The main sites navigated for this virtual ethnography

were Quora, Stackoverflow, Nscodecentre and Ux.stackexchange., later on through desk

research, all the tools mentioned were researched and described in this deliverable. On the

contrary, observations and in‐depth interviews were made in two Guadalinfo Centers1,

where the elderly and people with low digital literacy learn about computers. Parallel to this

field research, more in‐depth interviews were made to a set of disabled people users of

ONCE Foundation job recruitment services. These two techniques were useful in order to

see what users want in relation to technology and software, whether it fulfilled their needs,

challenges, obstacles and navigation patterns. Nonetheless the field work, due to the early

stage of the project was mostly exploratory.

Results: The results are expressed in three different parts. The first one related to the set of

tools and opinion about these tools given by developers as a product of the virtual

ethnography and desk research. The second one accounts for what users have expressed in

the in‐depth interviews and observations, the content is related to basic research about

technology, desires, needs, current use, etc. Finally as a synthesis of all results a set of

personas, scenarios and requirements are drawn in order to tailor the findings with the

Prosperity4all WP206 intention of building a set of tools that connect customers and

developers effectively. The core tools behind all the components suggested to be developed

are based upon three concepts; survey tools, user panel repository and connection with the

main sites, communities, social networks, etc.

Main Barriers: The main barrier found in this research involves the connection of both parts

of the research users & developers due to the fact that both are inserted in different

dynamics and contexts. The study directed to users undertaken through in‐depth interviews

1Guadalinfo Centres were born as an initiative of the Andalusian Government which consisted of opening a public hub with computers allocating equipment and teachers in villages with less than 20000 inhabitants and deprived areas.



and observation was a exploratory effort useful to frame some concepts but not enough in

itself to generalise results to the average user. A second barrier was found when deciding

the user profiles and the validity assessment of the field work results. This was solved

acknowledging the exploratory nature of the field work in this initial stage and using the

input for framing new questions, hypothesis and generalisations.

Lessons learned: Virtual ethnography is a useful and singular new method that even though

it is confined to internet, enables the researcher to look at a full universe of profiles and

interactions, most of the times ordered (semantically, numerically, etc). There is still a lot of

work to do for working on incentives and motivations of users to participate in development

& research tasks with developers

Conclusions: This deliverable gives enough account on the main ways in which customers

can be engaged over time. This is done by looking at the main tools that enable that

connection in all stages (idea validation, users/developers communities, funding by the

crowd and testing). Moreover an exploratory field research is done by observing and

interviewing a set of users clarifying what is the current baseline in relation with technology,

feedback and feed forward, etc.

Recommendations: This deliverable and its different parts, responding to different methods,

should be understood in the following way: The results accounting for a set of tools,

communities and schemes (i.e Crowd funding) are the solid foundations of what is on today

in the field of relations consumer‐producer of software. On the contrary, field work is seen

as basic science in order to capture user needs, navigation patterns, challenges, interactions,

etc. The link between parts, the solid and the exploratory is marked by the definition of

personas, scenarios and requirements done by the researchers. This last linking exercise has

followed and inductive linear approach from personas, scenarios and requirements.



1 Introduction

Prosperity4all focuses on developing the infrastructure to allow a new ecosystem to grow;

one that is based on self‐rewarding collaboration, that can reduce redundant development,

lower costs, increase market reach and penetration internationally, and create the robust

cross‐platform spectrum of mainstream and assistive technology based access solutions

required. This will be done through a process based on true value propositions for all

stakeholders and resulting in a system that can profitably serve markets as small as one, at a

personally and societally affordable cost.

This infrastructure will use cloud, crowd, game and smart technologies, to bring new players

with both low and high technical skills into the development and delivery ecosystem,

introduce accessibility as a ubiquitous service. It will combine auto‐configured access

features built into mainstream products with assistive technologies and services to create

the rich milieu of options needed to bring this diverse population of populations into our

digital future

This deliverable is the first one of WP 206 Sustainable Meaningful Consumers‐Developer

Connections (Pull vs Push). WP206 will have as a result a set of tools and components that

will enable the self‐reproduction of the GPII by creating an ecosystem of participation,

production and consumption of accessible software services.

According to the Document of Work, this deliverable comprises the work for Task 206.1

which consists of studying the feedback and feedforward needs and preferred modalities.

The problematic presented in the document of work explains that nowadays, developers do

not have suitable tools to gather feedback and feedforward information. On the user sides

they feel unheard and excluded. This task and deliverable, shows an inventory of tools that

enable those actions as a state of the art report, as well as a field study which consisted on

observing and asking the relation of users with technology targeted at their hypothetic

communication with developers. In short, this activity intends to determine the best ways to

engage customers over time by finding the intersection between users and developers.

Table 1: Deliverable Objectives

Nº Objective

O1 To capture what consumers want with regard to the ability to provide feedback

to developers and input that would direct future development efforts,

intersected with the developers’ needs of information.

O2 To identify what tools of channels or methods are that different consumers or

types of consumers prefer to use, intersected with developers preferred

mechanism to obtain it.



Nº Objective

O3 To assess the connection of future P4all developments with social networks.

O4 To identify developers needs in future development efforts

Therefore the mission of the following research is to deepen into possible ways to engage

customers along the whole value chain. This means conveying appropriate feedback for

developers in time as well as user requirements. Currently the connection between end

users is rather poor in all its aspects (requirements generation, testing, validation, etc.).

Developers have an idea and build up a system or a feature, end users try to appropriate

that technology and communication remains very limited. As it can be seen in the following

figure this relation is generally indirect and unidirectional towards the object (software),

rather than between stakeholders.

Figure 1: Traditional flow between users and developers

In the scientific work of this deliverable there are two distinctive spheres or layers that

correspond with the fulfilment of O1 and O2. On the one hand in order “to determine what

consumers want with regard to the ability to provide feedback to developers and input that

would direct future development efforts, intersected with the developers’ needs of

information” users will be asked and observed in order to clarify what the current baseline

of technology use is. Regarding O2, which is to identify what tools of channels or methods

are that different consumers or types of consumers prefer to use, intersected with

developers preferred mechanism to obtain it, this will be done by looking at each



component in a state of the art. The information about tools will come from virtual

ethnography (what developers say in different for a about these interactions).

Once this deliverable and activity is finished, Technosite developers will start to code in

order to end up with the components P4all suggested in this report. The main hypothesis of

tools described in O2 that will be developed by engineers at the end of this study will consist

of:

Accessible Feedforward mechanism: (tools for gathering new ideas from end‐users)

(For existing products and generic accessibility ideas

Crowd funding schemes for new products/developments

Validation and tuning of ideas with consumers at the early stages,

Evaluation, testing and improvements suggestions of prototypes (mid stage)

Evaluation of product beta (latter stages)

Unification of tools to market place (+rating and feedback)

These components cover a range of flow actions of different nature. They are: Reporting

needs, looking at technical viability, infrastructural (financial) viability, prototyping

development, testing development and validation. In the following figure, these actions are

represented as the needed interactions for a successful accessible software delivery.

Figure 2 Actions flow in the user and development connection

Therefore in the following figure a relation of the aforementioned actions and the actual

Prosperity4all components is drawn.



Figure 3 Relation of actions covered and intended components to be developed



2 Methodology

In order to know more about the different existing ways in which users can be involved in

the whole development value chain, first the technical team would like to deepen into the

user and developer ecosystem. This means getting to know their needs, motivations and

capabilities along with the current use of technology the target population does. The

methodology paradigm chosen is triangulation of qualitative methods (interviews,

observation, virtual ethnography and desk research). According to Alan Bryman (Bryman,

2010) , This refers to the use of more than one approach to the investigation of a research

question in order avoid limitations and test variables. In this case, with the objective in mind

to describe the best ways to engage users over time (breaking down all steps, demands,

testing, funding, etc.) and moreover to end up with a set of scenarios and requirements that

can point out the direction in which Prosperity4all system will be developed, four techniques

combined will be in place. These four techniques are desk research, virtual ethnography,

participant observation and in‐depth interviews. Desk research, or research on secondary

sources, has been ideal for an initial mapping and description of the resources and tools

used nowadays. This technique has been useful for defining much of the work done in

online‐ethnography. Furthermore the availability of Guadalinfo Centres2 enabled us to carry

out field work with users in real environments in order to do basic research about user

needs, motivations and so on. In the centres two techniques were applied within the (on‐

site) Ethnography label, participant observation on the one hand and in‐depth interviews on

the other with the same users observed. Finally in order to get feedback from the developer

community, the researchers thought that virtual ethnography around the most visited

developers ‘portals and communities was the most accurate way to get a grasp on their

views. Each technique has been picked up due to the suitability of the object of study. This

combination enables the research to move around different distant layers from basic

(interviews on user needs) to applied research (desk research on existing tools).

The number of participants for each profile is accounted in section 2.4.1 but all in all there

were two groups of people observed (7 elders, 8 people with low computer literacy). These

participants were also subject of an in‐depth interview. Moreover eleven disabled people

were also interviewed, though not observed. Regarding the virtual ethnography, over 70 for

a or conversation threads were followed in 5 online portals. This fieldwork has been

exploratory, therefore the final requirements came from the analytical combination of the

different field techniques and the desk research.

2 Guadalinfo Centres were born as an initiative of the Andalusian Government which consisted of opening a public hub with computers allocating equipment and teachers in villages with less than 20000 inhabitants and deprived areas.



Table 2: Techniques related to objectives

Technique Explanations Place Objective3

Observations The researcher observed the

interaction of two groups learning

about computers identifying

challenges, common questions, etc

Two Guadalinfo

Centres

O1,O3

In‐depth

interviews

Users will be asked about the

current use of technology,

navigation patterns, needs met by

technology along with obstacle and

how to overcome them

Two Guadalinfo

Centres + FSC

Headquarters

O1,O3

Online

ethnography

This implies looking for online

interaction in the main communities

answering research questions about

the P4all tools

Online communities of

developers

(Github,Stakcoverflow,

Quora,etc)

O2,O4

Desk

Research

The items researched in the internet

will come suggested mainly from

what it was found in the virtual

ethnographic work

‐ O2,O3

3 O1 To determine what consumers want with regard to the ability to provide feedback to developers and input that would direct future development efforts, intersected with the devlopers´needs of information. O2 To identify what tools of channels or methods are that different consumers or types of consumers prefer to use, intersected with developers preferred mechanism to obtain it. O3 To assess the conection of future P4all developments with social networks. O4 To identify developers needs in future development efforts



Figure 4 Triangulation paradigm of research techniques

2.1 Desk Research

This initial activity has consisted in a systematic review of existing tools and components.

Apart from looking for the components on specific portals, we paid attention to what has

been considered as informal source of information such as blogs. The blogs consulted have a

good natural SEO position therefore this makes them a reference to consider in such a study.

The main input for this desk research has come initially from the virtual ethnography. This

input has enabled us to frame the fieldwork as well as the personas shaping since there is a

direct connection between this task and the requirement generation phase. Research on

different tools has been done according to the results obtained during the online

ethnography process due to the expert knowledge of different portals and fora consulted.

Deepening in the areas addressed by this Work Package will enable the researcher to get

enough expertise to locate where the added value of the final components is. This desk

research includes scientific articles, official statistics, dataset produced by research and

dissemination magazines and websites. The main items of customer engagement identified

in the DoW for this research are the following:

• Accessible Feedforward mechanism: (tools for gathering new ideas from end‐users)

(For existing products and generic accessibility ideas)

• Crowd funding schemes for new products/developments

• Validation and tuning of ideas with consumers at the early stages,

• Evaluation, testing and improvements suggestions of prototypes (mid stage)

• Evaluation of product beta (latter stages)



• Unification of tools to market place (+rating and feedback)

In short, the main classification will consist of accessible feedforward mechanisms basically

concerning user´s communities, accessible feedback mechanisms concerning remote testing

and finally the most important crowd funding schemes.

2.2 Virtual Ethnography Virtual ethnography concerns the study of a culture or context placed in the cyberspace.

Virtual Ethnographers take part of the culture by observing and participating in those

targeted online communities. This kind of ethnography presents fewer burdens than the

traditional one and can be done without changing the normal environment of the researcher

(Kozinets, 2010). For this study, the researcher has logged in users and developers online

communities. The main portals used were Quora, Stackoverflow, nscodecentre and

Ux.stackexchange. The target of this ethnography is to understand what the drivers,

motivations and methods of communication those individuals have in relation to the object

of study. Many tools have been discovered through this method. The data has been captures

captured in a field diary including all the typed interactions along with the links. Participation

on the research side has been rather limited due to the initial lack of familiarity and sense of

urgency given by the researcher. When first logged in in order to present the problem and

ask some questions, the researcher realized that most questions were already asked and

different related threads already existed. Moreover you had to contribute in order to gain

kharma/reputation (rights). Therefore, for the sake of the research, this task was limited to

looking for the threads concerning this study and extracts them in a separate diary.

Nonetheless, despite the initial apparent failure, all the items of the research were properly

questioned, answered and curated by users (mostly developers) themselves. All main

questions were found properly rated and curated. The main portals used were Quora,

Stackoverflow, nscodecentre and Ux.stackexchange. The questions typed were very straight

forward as it can be seen in the annex where the highlights are conveyed.

2.3 Observation As a cornerstone of the ethnographic research, participant observation consists of “the

systematic description of events, behaviors and artifacts in the social setting chosen for

study” (Buchanan, 1988). This has been a primary method in anthropology in which the

researcher used to live for a period of time with the culture studied. In this case in order to

deepen into the user´s motivation, drives, and challenges, the researcher attended various

computer learning sessions organized in Guadalinfo Centres in Málaga villages observing the

main interactions of users with technology and the environment. The observation of these

sessions enabled the researcher to overcome the usual barrier of seen the user as an

isolated lonely figure. On the contrary a natural environment of users learning about



operating with a computer was there. According to literature in the ethnographic research

the role of key informants is essential (Clifford, 1997). Key informants served as a gate and

primary source of knowledge. The main hypothesis and the research storyline is very much

marked by them. In this case, our key informants were the Guadalinfo center facilitators.

Each facilitator is in charge of a centre, leading the main activities and establishing contact

with users. They intuitively know the user needs and at the same time are familiar with the

technical and research jargon. Therefore prior to the actual participant observation an in‐

depth interview with each facilitator is the corner stone of the research development. Both

facilitators were very useful in this observation by naturalizing our presence, explaining our

role and guiding us through our research. After an initial interview with both, explaining the

project and research objectives the main variables were defined. Both facilitators explained

the technical team all the background about Guadalinfo Centres and more importantly

about the local community in which the centres were located. On the one hand, Pizarra´s

facilitator explained that in the centre most of the users were elderly people or people in

their middle age who are not very confident about their computer skills. Pizarra is a village

almost 30 kilometers from Malaga mainly agricultural and with little industry.

Unemployment is very high and many people are used to commute to Málaga for work. In

this Pizarra centre there is a group of mentally disabled people who are institutionalized but

according to the facilitator they are not taught anything about technology since they just

play simple video games set by Juan Antonio himself, therefore there was little to research.

All in all the final agreement between the key informant and the researcher was that in

Pizarra two routine sessions with a group of elderly will be observed.

The second village with a Guadalinfo centre in which field work was undertaken is Cártama.

The village is divided into two, on the one hand the historical old village and opposite to it

what it used to be the area where the railway station was placed. The second one is twice as

big as the first one. This centre is in the township headquarters where there are other free

activities. The Guadalinfo room of both places is almost identical without purpose. The

centre facilitator offered the researcher also to be present in two sessions with beginners

(low computer literacy), all of them under 50. Nonetheless the computer literacy was higher

in Cartama also due to the younger average age. All the disabled people who had been users

of this centre are already in similar activities organized by disabled organisations. The

facilitator was familiar to assistive technology and showed the researcher a vast amount of

hardware assistive devices in order to adapt any computer if needed. All centres had a set of

adaptations as well as open source screen readers even though not many made use of them.

Due to the fact that the main research question cannot be answered straight away just by

asking or even merely by observing, an initial set of variables were defined and coded first.

Therefore the initial research questions to address are the following:

What are the user needs?

How are they been fulfilled?



What are the user motivations?

What are the user capabilities?

What are the user current technology use patterns?

Following the concept of natural navigation, our aim is to bridge the gap between the

natural navigation of users (Facebook, Google, and Hotmail) to the unmet needs or retained

capacities. As it was stated previously, the ethnographic method is more appropriate since it

does not isolate them in the lab. Nonetheless it was obvious during the research that the

final interaction with the technology is carried out by the individual user, and culture may

condition hence it is not a driver per se in this process. By mapping what are the main user

needs offline along with their motivations and capacities, the gap between the current

technology use and those can be identified. Not forgetting that the ultimate objective of this

research is to locate and design ways of user involvement for developers, the current

situation and potentialities of these users has to be assessed. This stage of the research is

very basic but necessary in order to know the average user in real environment, to end up

with requirements from this research is a huge challenge that will be bridge with desk

research and online ethnography where many experts interact in different communities. The

data was collected in different ways. Starting as any ethnographic study, the researcher

mingled in the ecosystem participating in their daily activities. The first impressions and the

relations with the research questions, its framework and possible methodology

modifications, were done in a field diary. Nonetheless, in Annex 8.5, the observation items

along with the researcher´s template can be found.



Figure 5 Picture of Cartama Guadalinfo Centre during observations

2.4 In-depth interviews

Conducting in‐depth interviews is a qualitative method used in social sciences and in the

area of informatics, especially to capture requirements. Opposite to questionnaires or

structured interviews, there is not a limited set of questions or answers. Nonetheless a script

with the main issues to be touched by the interviewers is produced. Therefore this format is

flexible enough to allow new variables to be brought up. The Interview Script functions as an

interview guide where topics are grouped. This enables the researcher to respect the

conversation flow without tight constrains therefore adapting the research to the context,

situation and other characteristics of the interviewee. The main objective of these interviews

related to the project as such is matched with Objective N1: To determine what consumers

want with regard to the ability to provide feedback to developers and input that would

direct future development efforts, intersected with the devlopers´ needs of information. In

order to fulfil this objective, basic research was done in order to see what users’ needs may

be fulfilled with technology, what are their main navigation patterns, how they interact

when obstacles or challenges are faced, etc.

There were a total of 26 interviews made to three different groups. In one instance Pizarra

users who were people over 45 years old, in the other, Cartama users who were below 45

years old (mostly) and, finally, eleven users with different levels of disability provided by

Fundosa Social Consulting ( a recruitment firm focused on disabled workers). The sampling



of both Guadalinfo groups was somewhat casual, adapting the research to the Guadalinfo

pre‐existing groups whereas for the group of people with disabilities, a coordination work

was done with Fundosa Social Consulting technical team. The profile definition for

recruitment given to them was a combination of people with different visual, hearing and

cognitive impairments. The participants needed to have at least a medium level of computer

literacy (everyday use of smartphone/computer) and the sample had to be somewhat

diverse. Two types were defined (severe/mild) for each profile. Regarding mobility problems,

it was defined to be upper limbs associated. The final profile result was the following.

2.4.1 Profiles

The user segmentation intended to be evenly distributed among the different profiles used

for these tests, covering Visual, Hearing, Cognitive and Mobility impairments. These are the

user profiles scheduled for interviews with the aid of FSC (Disabled worker´s recruitment

consulting) a partner company of Technosite. Due to the uncertain availability of disabled

people and the lack of details about each user in the data base they use for calling them, the

technical team could only ask for distribution as even as possible of those profiles as well as

a high variety of them. Along with these instructions, computer literacy of these disabled

people should be at least medium (everyday use of computer, smartphone).

Regarding the users of Guadalinfo centres, the technical team was not able to choose or

segment them since there were only two groups, one for computer literacy and other

composed by elderly.

Table 3: User Profiles

Profile Number Sub description Techniques

Visual impairments 3 1 Total/ 2 Partial (need of

magnifying software)

Only interview

Hearing impairments 2 Lip readers (Both) Only interview

Cognitive

impairments:

intellectual disabilities

and specific learning

difficulties

4 2 Borderline/1 dyslexia/1 Down

Syndrome

Only interview

Mobility problems 2 Upper limbs Only interview



Profile Number Sub description Techniques

Other profiles

(including

combinations of

disabilities, older

people and low digital

literacy)

7

(Elderly)

+8 (Low

Computer

literacy)

The elderly belonged to Pizarra

Centre whereas people with low

computer literacy attended

Cártama´s one. ‐

Interview +

Observation

Guadalinfo Facilitators 2 ‐ Interview +

Observation

2.4.2 Ethical Issues

The ethical issues of this specific part of the research have been considered within the

Cloud4all framework and according to the Ethics Manual for Prosperity4all called “D501.2‐1

GPII Ethics Manual” There are two ways in which ethical issues are considered. One in which

the involvement of users, developers, stakeholders is key and the other related to the

consequence of the research itself. The importance of these matters is enough to build up a

management structure in charge of foreseen ethical issues.An Ethics Advisory Board has

been established within Prosperity4all. The creation of this board has run parallel to the

research work undertaken for this report. All relevant have been checked ethically

highlighting some questions such as privaciy, safety, compensation etc.

Ethical concerns are very important for this research mostly due to the designed techniques.

Ethnographic studies encounter ethical challenges throughout the whole cycle. There are

different aspects in each stage (Buchanan, 1988). The present notes have been taken from

the Cambridge University website in the ethnographic section: As a foreword, it is important

to highlight that this ethnographic research with users in real and learning environments

attempts to know in‐depth user needs, motivations and current use of technology.

Therefore, there is no need to do covert research impersonating a different role than a

researcher. The transparency used for approaching users will not affect the study quality. As

a general rule, the researcher who is going to mingle with users will be presented as such

since the beginning. Moreover the researcher trusting in its own social skills will treat

everyone with empathy and openness as the ethnographic etiquette prescribes. They have

facilitated the contact of two facilitators from two centres (Álora and Pizarra). A simple

document containing these issues will be handed to Fernando de los Ríos Consortium. In

case of access of any backstage knowledge by the researcher he must treat this information

as confidential. Nonetheless if the information endangers other users´ physical or mental

integrity, this information will be reported to the person in charge of the centre (facilitator)

or Fernando de los Ríos Consortium´ contact. Regarding interviews with disabled users

facilitated by Fundosa Social Consulting partners, they were firstly identified in their



database. Later on they received a call in order to invite them to participate in an interview

where all the information was given (purpose, place, estimated duration, etc). If they

answered affirmatively, they were asked for consent to transfer their telephone number to

Technosite researchers in order to appoint the date and arrangements. In the appointment

call, all the information was given again asking for any accessibility or special arrangement.

2.4.2.1 Informed Consent

An informed consent form was handed to every user when the in‐depth interviews took

place. The structure of the document starts with an explanation of the project purposes as

well as the purposes of the interview. A mention on the data handling and the possibility to

cease at any time is also in the form. It was explained also that the socio‐demographic

information may be publish giving them the choice to code or change their name when

publishing that data. There were no incidences in this initial part of the interview apart from

the fact that the informed consent for the blind person was recorded whereas the one

signed by the person with Down syndrome was signed by him and his companion (father).

2.4.2.2 Data handling and privacy

Regarding the data handling and privacy of user input, all captured personal data was and is

treated under the rule of the Spanish Organic of Personal Data Protection 15/99. In the final

Annexes 8.3 and 8.2, all documents of informed consent and inquiry letter can be found.

Even though this research is framed within the GPII scheme, no data has been stored in the

cloud. Nonetheless during observation the researcher has been able to see what users did

on their computer. Apart from being aware of my presence as a participant observer, no

record of the users was made public. The researcher only recorded their first name and

surname during the interview, therefore the data protection only concerned the interview

transcription.

2.4.2.3 Personal Safety and Accessibility

The personal safety for the Guadalinfo centres is an issue already addressed by the Fernando

de los Rios consortium (in charge of every centre), and since no new users are called, no

additional measures had to be taken. Both centres are inserted in accessible community

buildings of the town hall. A whole set of different assistive technology devices are part of

each Guadalinfo centre such as adapted mouse, screen readers installed, etc. Nonetheless

the two groups observed go at least once a week to the computer lessons.



Regarding the interviews with disabled people, they took place in the local ONCE4 premises

in Malaga. When arranging the interviews, the researchers asked every user about special

adaptations and accessibility issues. The two main remarks were made for the informed

consent by the blind person and the person with Down syndrome. An audio alternative (read

and recorded was found for the blind person and regarding the person with Down

syndrome, his companion (father) was present during the interview and both signed the

consent. Personal safety in the transportation to the Guadalinfo or FSC premises for the

interviews was not contemplated due to the fact that both instituions are known by users

and visiting them is usual for all of them. Guadalinfo users go to the centres weekly and FSC

users go often to the same premises in order to hold interviews or attending courses.

2.4.2.4 Compensation

According to the different nature of the groups, a difference in terms of compensation was

made. Due to the fact that Guadalinfo users are inserted in their usual routine, no

compensation for them was foreseen. On the contrary for the users interviewed at the

ONCE/FSC premises compensation was considered to be important due to the additional

effort employed by them. The compensation consisted of a gift card of 50€ value suitable for

El Corte Ingles (First Spanish mall chain).

4Spanish blind national organisation



3 Results of Components (Virtual Ethnography and Desk Research)

The following results are grouped around the different components targeted at this work

package expecting to be integrated. They are resulting from a search on secondary sources

as well as from the virtual ethnography effort. After this, prior to the personas, scenarios

and requirements defined, a summary of the observation and interviews results is given.

3.1 Validation ideas portals Regarding the validation of ideas portal, there are different kinds of them. As it has been

suggested by the online ethnography, this concept has evolved from researchers

communities to then communities that offered the solution of some challenges in exchange

for a financial reward (open innovation portals) to finally replace these portals to directly

crowd funding schemes. These kinds of portals have enabled the outsourcing of R&D

capabilities to the brad world. A common feature of them is the presence either of a reward

(monetary in most cases) or a social/community value such as solving problems for certain

types of groups (disabled, low income classes, minorities, etc). This last feature is especially

relevant in the Global Public Infrastructure since the main target are people prone to be left

behind, therefore a sense of community or a solidarity narrative will mark an incentive to

develop, improve or revise something. These portals are different to the crowd funding ones

due to the fact that the challenge is opened by the person/entity demanding the product,

not the developer. The sense of creativity, invention and competition is also an attractive

driver for solving the challenges. The portals that have failed to show incentives, either

monetary or missionary are the ones who look less successful. Nonetheless here there are

the most important ones with an introduction and a short explanation.

3.1.1 Innocentive5

Innocentive is an open innovation company that by giving cash awards, it organizes

“challenge problems” for anyone to solve them. The fields of these challenges may vary from

engineering, computer science, match, physical sciences and businesses. Innocentive retains

part of the award as a commission; they have built up a global network of Solvers as well as

R&D Challenges through their electronic marketplace. The average cost of a Premium

Challenge is $20,000 not including the actual award. In order to avoid competition issues,

companies offering challenges remain anonymous. Solvers can consult all challenges and

submit solutions without any charge. If the Seeker Company is convinced about the

5 http://www.innocentive.com/



feasibility of a solution, then the Seeker Company provides the pre‐specified award in

exchange for the acquisition of the IP rights. Here is the example of a challenge:

“Standardized testing is a rite of passage, especially for students in the United States.

Previously these assessments consisted of multiple‐choice questions with fill‐in‐the‐bubble

answer sheets. Computer‐based exams are now available, leading to the introduction of

technologically enhanced items that require hand‐eye coordination for successful

completion. The Seeker desires a solution that would allow individuals with motor or visual

impairment to effectively access technology enhanced items independently.”

Figure 6 Innocentive Screenshot

3.1.2 Yet26

Yet2.com is a technology open innovation marketplace that enables all types of technologies

to be bought and sold. Yet2.com network of clients has access to about half of the world´s

R&D capacity through listings on its global marketplace (this claim is made by the company

itself). Patent abstracts are designed to protect an idea from any misuse. Claims of

challenges are as broad as possible. Yet2.com features functional abstracts that have the aim

of marketing the technology. The yet2.com technologies include groups of associated

patents. Finally every technology listed is available for licensing.

6 www.yet2.com



3.1.3 Ninesigma7 and NineSights 8 NineSigma connects organizations with external innovation resources by the open

innovation principle to accelerate innovation in private, public and social sector. The open

innovation marketplace founded by Ninesigma evolves. Ninesights emerged as an offshoot

company of the latter focusing on specific industries, corporations or causes.

3.1.4 Grabcad9 Grabcad is a company that manages a Collaborative product development tool that enables

producing, viewing and sharing CAD files in the cloud. It started as a community where

professionals uploaded open source CAD models. This is an example of collaborative work

where a wide range of professionals collaborate in solving problems and building up

prototypes. It has now over a million users.

3.1.5 AutoHarvest10 AutoHarvest is a nonprofit that operates a web‐based innovation ecosystem.

AutoHarvest.org was launched in 2012 as a meeting place for innovators and investors. It

curates an innovation hub that provides access to smart‐tools developed by others. There is

an AutoHarvest interes group which is made up of 250 cutting edge R&D and manufacturing

organistaion from the auto industry, government and academia.

3.1.6 Pickfu11 Pickfu is a startup that offers you instant feedback from the general public. This tool enables

you to open a survey and get 50 responses within minutes with complete written

explanations and demographic breakdowns. As it was expressed in some discussions

captured during the online ethnography, this tool is really an overlap of crowdsourcing and

validation that shows what the trend is.

3.1.7 Ideas4all12 Ideas4all is a vertical social network that allows users to share ideas in order to build up the

“Global Brain”. This network enables users to publish, rate and share ideas in different

languages (English, Spanish and Japanese) in order to encourage exchange and knowledge

transfer. Ideas4all is a democratic network where ideas are validated by users, rather than

an expert committee.

7 http://www.ninesigma.com/ 8 https://ninesights.ninesigma.com/welcome 9 https://grabcad.com/home 10 http://www.autoharvest.org/ 11 http://www.pickfu.com/sw 12 http://www.autoharvest.org/



3.1.8 Hackforgood13 HackForGood is a hackathon on social innovation. They are normally organized in different

cities through their portal and it functions around challenges presented by organizations and

individuals.

3.1.9 Nuez14 Nuez is a Spanish portal that funds social innovation projects. Users rate what projects are

the most innovative or the highest level of community outreach. It has a validation

committee of experts. About one million euros a year is the amount of funding given to

different projects.

3.1.10 Uninnova Network15

This is a Spain based University Network of Accessible Innovation funded by ONCE

Foundation. The main objective is to contribute to the paradigm shitf of Univesity‐Society

relations in order to promote knowledge transfer and collaborative development in the field

of Accessible Technologies.

There are different collaboration schemes that enabled the innovation potential of univesity

researches on the one hand and the knowledge and real demaands of disabled users and

users organisations. UNINNOVA contributes to maximise the social impact of university

initiatives due to its knowledge of disabilties in the early stages of research.

3.2 User groups Hereby in this subsection an account can be found of the most used online communities and

groups of disabled users. It is important to highlight that even though many of them may

seem outdated such as mailing lists or yahoo groups, some communities remain active and

some profiles have a preference for them. Nonetheless as it has been noted in the field

work as well as the desk research, user groups are mostly channelled through social

networks. The exceptions are too specific (such as yahoo and google groups), and even those

exceptions seem to be working to social network integration. Audios and Video chats start to

be grouped around webinars but again, the road is composed by social networks. It is

important to remark one of them, Quora, due to the fact that here users, professionals and

developers interact directly with an increasing rate of use. World renown experts have an

account and interactions are rich. Quora can be accessed also through social networks. As a

matter of fact a huge amount of the material extracted in the virtual ethnography comes

from this network.

13 http://hackforgood.net/ 14 http://www.nuez.es/ 15 http://uninnova.es/es‐ES/Publico/QueEs.aspx



3.2.1 Yahoo and Google groups Yahoo Groups is one of the largest online fora compilations. Groups are a hybrid internet

tool coming from a forum in strict sense and a mailing list. Therefore, the mail can be used

as a posting and reading tool parallel to the usual forum dynamics.

The nature of yahoo groups are endless as well as their dynamics. Feeds can be enabled,

access can be either public or restricted and posting rights can be only entitled to

moderators. Similar to yahoo groups there are two modalities of discussion on delivered via

e‐mail and the other via web interface. The first one acts as a mailing list and the second

kind are Usenet groups, being Google Groups the gateway and the archive. Registered users

can set up mailing lists hosted elsewhere. They became fully operational at the beginning of

2001 when Deja´s Usenet was acquired by Google (Deja News started in 1995).

3.2.1.1 Access for the blind16 Access for the blind is a list dedicated to serve as a forum for discussion by and for people

with visual impairments and blindness. The list is to help keep people informed on changes

in the field of adaptive technology, technical support for adaptive technology and to help

serve as a user testimonial of the products for the blind and visually impaired. Topics include

JAWS for Windows, Window Eyes, and Atlas talking maps, Braille embossers, the Braille 'n

Speak and OCR reading systems (Open Book and Omni Page Pro). They are also setting up a

voice chat room in the near future for an on‐line chat about adaptive technology.

3.2.1.2 Tifloclub Hispania17This is a moderated list concerning technology for blind and people with visual impairments

targeted to the Spanish speaking world. This group is for blind and visually impaired people,

as well as their families and friends, and those who work with blind and visually impaired

people, and those who have a genuine interest in the well‐being of people who are blind or

visually impaired who want to discuss issues relating to blindness and/or visual impairment,

from issues of day to day life, to issues of finding employment, to issues such as the newest

assistive and/or medical technology. This is the most used mailing list related to technology

and visual impairments. The average of messages a month is over 200 and is definetly up to

date with accessibility for blind people and people with visual impairments.

16 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/accessfortheblind/info 17 https://es.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tifloclub‐utlai/info



3.2.1.3 DEAF-UK 18 DEAF‐UK is a Discussion/Email Group for Deaf. Deaf‐UK has become a valued part of the

Deaf/BSL Community, and now has over 2,600 members. The membership is restricted to

users invited. This group has its own website even though it still functions as an email group.

The group was founded in 1999 and for many years it has represented the centrality of

online information and interaction of DEAF people in the UK and the English speaking world.

Looking at the activity, it has been declining in the last years, even though it looks that the

creator/curator updates useful information for deaf people from social network to these

groups.

3.2.1.4 Disabiltiy PC Tech 19 The primary concept of this community is providing necessary technical support of computer

hardware ‐ software related problems for Persons with Disabilities. Not only do they deal

with disability issues, but their main tool and precious resource computers can fail when

least expected. Disability PC Tech Team will instruct members with essential Internet Tools,

and Web 2.0 Knowledge Services to make computers a less frustrating experience.

3.2.1.5 Sordos, hipoacusicos juntos20 This group is made up of people with hearing impairments or their relatives in order to

establish links, share knowledge etc. This group is moderated. The group is targeted at the

Spanish speaking world. The creators and moderators are from Argentina but they cover the

whole of South America and Spain. The activity of this group has also been on decline. The

approach of this group is related to technology and psychological support. This group does

not receive updated content from social networks.

3.2.1.6 Lisorci This list is about aids to blind‐deaf users. The main entity involved is ASOCIDE which is a

reference in the Spanish speaking world for this impairment. This group has coached many

blind‐deaf people in the use of technology.

3.2.1.7 Apple Vis Applevis is a site for Apple environment users (iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch) with some

visual impairment. Content is generated by users. There are multiple was to access and post

relevant information concerning accessibility for Apple gadgets. Moreover AppleVis intends

18 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/deaf‐uk/info 19 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DisabilityPCTech/info 20 https://ar.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Sordos‐hipoacusicos‐juntos/info



to raise awareness of the accessibility of iOS in order to not leave anyone behind Apple´s

developments.

3.2.2 Audio/Video-chats “I will never forget the day when Shout cast was released. On that day, I realized that this

was going to be huge for the blind community. Broadcasting over the Internet had been

democratized.” Jonathan Mosen 21(Fredshead Blindness Blog)

Due to accessibility and usability reasons many users such as users with hearing and visual

impairments started to use the Skypecast services (not anymore available). Skypecast was a

service provided by Skype which enabled group conversations up to 100 users. Those

Skypecasts were moderated by an administrator. The service to lead and open a

conversation was free. The service could be plugged in to blogs in order to join a

conversation through a simple click. The service was shut down in 2008, even though some

alternatives eroded such as Skype multiparty call, CalliFlower and HiDef conferencing22.

Nonetheless the main scheduling is made from user community groups and social network

groups.

3.2.3 Quora23 Quora is a social network based on questions, answers and more importantly, their

moderation. Questions are aggregated to topics. This network is really in between a

crowdsourcing, validation portal and a users´‐developers’ portal. Quora login can be done

with Google, Twitter and Facebook accounts using OpenID Technology. Many gurus of

different topics are members of the network. The largest Quora group is in Silicon Valley.

Quora has a marked biased towards tech issues. This portal has been a corner stone in our

task of virtual ethnography and within our taxonomy; Quora is a user & a developer´s group

at the same time.

3.2.4 Social Network Groups Social Networks are in most cases the primary internet gateway. Disabled users gather also

to discuss their concerns creating groups (public and private). Surprisingly, the turn up is not

massive as it could be presumed. These communities remain rather familiar for actual users

and some important insights have been very useful regarding certain segments for this

project. Nonetheless some timid interaction between end users and developers has been

seen through the virtual ethnography work. Massive social networks, such as Goggle + and

21 http://www.fredshead.info/2006/05/skypecasts‐and‐blind‐community.html 22 http://voiceontheweb.biz/skype‐world/skype‐markets‐skype‐world/skype‐for‐business/alternatives‐to‐skypecasts/ 23 www.quora.com



Facebook show potentialities due to the fact that different profiles can meet there. If these

social networks belong to the normal navigation pattern of most people, the interaction

intended with P4all should be taken from there.

Table 4: Social Network groups of different disabilities

Group Name Social Network

Deaf Equality & Accessibility

Forum

Facebook

Moving Forward ‐ The

Disability Forum about

Media Access Office

Facebook

Drupal Accessibility Facebook

Web Accessibility Facebook

Forum For Blind Facebook

Users

Facebook

Blind Accessible Technology Google +

Deaf Accessible Technology Google +

3.3 Crowdfunding & Crowdsourcing Crowdfunding schemes are based upon the concept of collecting financial resources in

smaller amount than usual but by a large number of people. They have been popular in the

last 5 years due to the interconnection of the World Wide Web even though their origins

date back to the 17th century where funds were collected from the crowd to print books.

There are three kinds of crowdfunding depending on the reward given from the money

handed by backers:

Donation based: The main reward is abstract consisting on supporting a cause or

belonging to a community. Moreover a mentioning of gratitude or a small gift are

popular ways to acknowledge the backer.

In‐Kind based: The reward is normally a product or a clear pre‐order

Credit based: The reward is given by an interest rate in exchange. Therefore this is an

advanced form of risk capital.

Crowdsourcing portals intend to connect professionals and clients in order to hire, show

projects and share networks. Almost all different crowdsourcing platforms function similarly.

They follow a contest scheme. Applicants send some sketch, plan or offer and the client

chooses. Finally, is also feasible to connect a huge number of users to complete micro tasks

in order to review, add little content or accomplish some work in the style of Wikipedia. This

is relevant to our case, since accessibility compliance can be done by users and users as such



can report problems, review, etc. Therefore, a system as such would be highly useful for

Prosperity4all ecosystem

3.3.1 Kickstarter24 Is the world largest crowdfunding platform with over 1.7 million supporters and 5.7 million

projects. The projects funded vary from independent films to music, software and

videogames.

Charity or cause based projects are not allowed, neither no limit funding projects. Each

project has a deadline, if the target is not reached, the money is not collected, this is what is

called “provision point mechanism”. The money is collected through Amazon Payments.

Fees: 5% if you meet your goal plus payment processing fees.

Payments: Amazon Payments

Categories: Art, Comics, Dance, Design, Fashion, Film, Food, Games, Music,

Photography, Publishing, Technology, and Theatre

3.3.2 Indiegogo25 Indiegogo is the main kickstarter competitor just differing from the payment platform and

the fee percentage.

Fees: 4% if you meet your goal, 9% if you don't plus payment processing fees.

Payments: Paypal, ACH, Wire Transfer, or FirstGiving

Categories: Art, Comic, Dance, Design, Fashion, Film, Gaming, Music, Photography,

Theatre, Transmedia, Video, Writing, Causes, and Entrepreneurial (Food, Small

Business, Sports, and Technology)

3.3.3 RocketHub26 RocketHub is a worldwide crowdfunding platform that gained exposure through the A&E

networks. They have empowered businesses, governments, educators, and communities in

over 1,500 projects and are the leaders in crowdfunding education. Currently, the most

funded project to date is Extra Credits, a show about game design and the good games do.

Their goal was $15,000 and they received $153,000 from 3,824 funders. RocketHub's

Success School for insider knowledge and tools that can help you achieve your goals.

• Fees: 4% if you meet your goal, 8% if you don't plus payment processing fees.

• Payments: Secure Check or Digital Payment

24 https://www.kickstarter.com/ 25 https://www.indiegogo.com/ 26 http://www.rockethub.com/



• Categories: Art, Business, Science, and Social

3.3.4 CofundOS27 Cofundos is a crowdsourcing platform that enables the realization of open‐source software

ideas by organizing contributions and interests of different stakeholders in the area. Some

current projects consist on apps for recognizing the car framing an Android Messenger

Mobile App, an education support network for Deaf people, etc. This tool is interesting due

to the meeting point of advanced users and developers. The incentive schemes are based

around the open‐source community belonging. The only point in which this community

should improve is engaging more users of different profiles, not only open‐source techy

ones. It also has a crowdfunding scheme for bidding on projects

3.4 Developer´s Communities These communities nowadays can be separated into two, on the one hand the ones that are

based upon the repository principle and on the other the fora intended to answer questions.

Nonetheless in almost all repository sites, they include fora, wikis, etc. The dynamism of

these sites is ranked among the highest of any internet community. The expertise comprised

in these communities is also ranked probably the most proficient of any discipline, therefore

these communities are a must for any developer in order to store code and interact with

other fellow colleagues.

3.4.1 Github.com GitHub is a hosting service for code development. It has its own revision control system. The

repository was founded in 2008. It enables the generation of feeds, followers and wikis as

well as the social network graph to show the amount of progress done and pending of a

repository. GitHub integrates also other services such as web analytics

The system has released an open source Mac environment automation tool. Moreover

GitHub also has their standard GUI application available for download directly from the site.

The open source Android app can be found on Google Play.

27 http://www.cofundos.org/



Figure 7 Github screenshot

3.4.2 bitbucket28 Bitbucket is a hosting service for software development projects. The revision control

systems are Mercurial and Git. The private repositories are not displayed in the profile

pages. There are different free and commercial deals. Repository owners may have more

users in their account.

Figure 8 Bitbucket Screenshot

28 www.bitbucket.org



3.4.3 Sourceforge29 SourceForge is also a web‐based software development project repository. The main added

value is its centralization for developers to manage free and open source. Once it was the

first repository for open source projects. By the beginning of 2014 it hosted more than

400,000 projects and over 3.5 million users. The access of hosting and tools is free, all

impregnated with the open source philosophy. Some features are project wikis, metrics and

access to a MySQL database. There is a centralized storage and project management tools as

well as revision control systems such as CVS, SVN, Bazaar, Git or Mercurial.

When a project activity rises, the system´s internal ranking system makes it more visible to

other developers. Exposure to a large community of developers can assure the sustainability

of open source projects.

Figure 9 Sourceforge screenshot

3.4.4 Stackoverflow30 Stack Overflow was created in 2008. It deals with questions and answers on all possible

topics related to computer programming. There is a voting system that places answers up or

down. Questions and answers can be edited in a similar way to a wiki. There is a gaming

scheme based on badges in order to receive awards. The content generated by users is

under the Creative Commons License. The level of participation in this community reaches

the logo design along with the name itself. Registration is not compulsory to have access to

29 http://sourceforge.net/ 30 http://stackoverflow.com/



the majority of the site functionality. Nonetheless through signing in a profile can be made

and reputation can be gained in order to re‐tag questions or voting.

Figure 10 Stackoverflow screenshot

3.4.5 Ux.Stackexchange31 UX.Stackexchange ia a question and answer site specific for UX matters (this includes

researchers, designers and a wide range of professionals). According to the online

ethnography, it is the most complete forum or portal on UX issues. It is part of the Stack

Exchange network of Q&A sites. The researches were referred to this site for the virtual

ethnography tasks and a lot of the input has been obtained from this portal. A lot of the

components and questions related to testing feedback and feedforward has been suggested

by this community through the virtual ethnography.

3.4.6 nscodecenter.com32 This web intends to go further than a mere forum. Questions must have tags, badges are

given by answers. Little by little a huge database has been created, being this website the

reference in the Spanish speaking world. All topics are related to iOS and Mac OS X. The

questions curated in this community have been very useful for the virtual ethnography

effort, especially for the way in which the main research questions were ordered

(semantically). A simple use of the Google search engine enabled the researchers to look at

the field intended.

31 http://ux.stackexchange.com/ 32 http://www.nscodecenter.com/



Figure 11 Nscodecenter screenshot

3.4.7 Android Fora33 This fora is devoted to Android development. All different kind of issues, questions, answers

and tutorials are available in order compile all the android development matters in a sole

site. There is a whole sub‐forum for app announcements, Alpha & Beta testing, etc.

Regarding this OS, this site concentrates most efforts related to Android Accesibility. The

moderation and curation of content is very well managed including repository, Git resources

and a community. This site is a hybrid of user/developer´s one. Nonetheless, language and

instructions is targeted to medium level users.

33 https://source.android.com/source/community/index.html



Figure 12 Android Forum screenshot

3.5 Evaluation & user feedback tools The most used tool for getting direct user feedback is remote testing schemes. Through

these tools is where feedback is center on the user actions (abilities, inabilities, mistakes,

performance, etc.). According to the findings in the virtual ethnography, it is obvious that

testing and evaluation tools should not require a lot of personal investment from users or

being targeted at those who are already tech savvy. Moreover there is an ongoing discussion

on what kind of users to ask, either the ones who are already engaged or also the “first

visitors”. Many professionals state in the different forums that it is better to start testing

with Photoshop or PowerPoint prototypes as mock ups. An interesting insight is that when

users do not have the control over the mouse, they tend to speak out loud more

comfortably. A must in all this testing procedures is screen casting. For actual feedback on

something already in the market, the feedback button is needed and does not cost much.

Testers normally like to see other options, problems and preferences (by others) and voting

them. Login nowadays should be done with Facebook and/or Google. The three variables

present in every test should be a) Ease of use b) Is the problem solved? C) What should be

added?. Hereby the next tools described are the ones suggested by developers in different

forums as the cutting edge of user feedback

3.5.1 Tender Tender provides a platform fully customizable. Discussions are automatically created and a

close monitoring of your web or product is made. The fees are important (over 450 Euros). A

widget that can be embedded to your site is also included. This is the most professional and

most advance user engagement platform, even though it is also the most expensive. It does

not require the user to sign up. IT has integration with prowl with a very usable dashboard;

moreover its API is growing among developers.



3.5.2 GetSatisfaction34 Get Satisfaction is a customer community software platform for technical Get Satisfaction

online communities can be a private and/or public place for customers to ask questions,

submit an idea or complaint, or give praise. Companies can respond to issues regarding their

products or services; official responses are marked as official answers to separate them from

other responses. Users can rate responses based on how well they resolve the issue. Get

Satisfaction launched their Facebook application that allows companies and brands to put

their customer community on their Facebook page as a tab.

3.5.3 Colabo35 Colabo gathers data from ANY web‐browsable source and displays them on one easy‐to‐use

dashboard. Colabo analyzes the data and automatically alerts the user when significant

changes occur in the sources that are being tracked. Additionally, Colabo visualizes the

sources on a series of graphs that help you better understand the data at hand. Colabo is

useful for a spectrum of purposes; from the simpler industry/market research to the more

complex sales lead qualification. At the core of the product, Colabo facilitates tracking a

great number of sources at once, and ultimately saves you time. Colabo is used most

successfully for lead qualification, lead generation, and named account tracking.

3.5.4 Helpshift36 Helpshift platform consists of a mobile‐focused solution, which aims to be “the first

embedded support desk for native apps,” allowing developers to capture device info from

their users so that they can troubleshoot problems quicker and more effectively. The

startup’s goal is to enable businesses and development teams to be able to fix issues before

they turn into “tickets” by offering built‐in, self‐service features. Helpshift looks to eliminate

problems before they get to a support email in a few ways: it allows users to easily search

FAQs from their phones, rather than scroll through all of the answers and if that doesn’t

work, users can send a note that will automatically attach their device details so that they

don’t have to type them out. Then, they are directed to an in‐chat text‐message like session

with a representative.

3.5.5 Apptentive37 Apptentive, according to some responses found in the online ethnography is an app

feedback tool enabling developers to engage with customers for positive ratings, feedback

34 https://getsatisfaction.com/corp/ 35 https://getsatisfaction.com/corp/ 36 https://www.helpshift.com/ 37 http://www.apptentive.com/



and customer research. The tool enables two‐way conversations inside your app to gather

feedback, listen to problems, and create great customer experiences.

3.5.6 Morae38 This moderated testing tool is based on sharing the participant´s screen in real‐time. The

system enables audio calling and chat. The number of observes is marked by the internet

connection. At the end of every session the screen recording and audio are synced and

rendered into a video. The licenses vary from one month period or the whole year

Figure 13 Morae screenshot

3.5.7 LiveLook39 Even though this tool does not record neither the screenshot nor the audio, it has some

positives worth mentioning. The service is rather cheap since they charge using prepaid

credit spent by time. There is no download required. It is very versatile since it runs on

Windows, Mac and Linux. According to reviews is very lightweight and can be used with a

very slow connection.

Figure 14 LiveLook screenshot

38 http://www.techsmith.com/morae.html 39 http://www.livelook.com/



3.5.8 Open VULab40 This tool has been developed by York University. It consists of an open‐source remote

usability tool that enables you to record video and audio. There is the need to install a java

plug‐in. There is a permanent user panel even though some reviews advice to have your own

and encourage them to log in. You can type in the tasks and users will attempt to

accomplish them.

40 http://130.63.174.77/wordpress/



Figure 15 VULab screenshot

3.5.9 Skype The most known internet communication client enables the feature to share screen. The

traditional video chat integrated makes this tool optimal due to the vast number of users

already logged in. This option lacks specific testing features and analytics but following the

concept of natural navigation, recruitment can be easier among Skype users.

Figure 16 Skype screenshot



3.5.10 ClickTale Beta41 This tool captures user interaction with webpages using javascript. The most relevant

features are “in‐page” user behavior, “heat maps” to see where users are clicking, scrolling

and entering data as well as the provision of “movies”

Figure 17 ClickTale screenshot

3.5.11 UZ Self-Serve Edition42

This tool has been developed by UserZoom which is a renouned UX research company. This

is a web‐based tool that enables the researcher to deal with simultaneous projects,

encourage users to accomplish certain tasks, surveuy, etc. This can be one of the most

versatile and complete tools in the market.

Figure 18 UZ self‐serve testing screenshot

41 http://research.clicktale.com/Mobile_MobileLandingPageBlack.html 42 http://www.userzoom.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/05/UserZoom_brochure_article_Feb11.pdf



3.5.12 WebEffective43 This tool has been developed by Keynote. The tasks are completed in pop‐up windows. This

has its positives since no download is required. Prior to that, some data is gathered in the

form of a survey. The user panel is provided by the company. Quantitative data is given

measuring clickstream, behavioral data, etc.

Figure 19 WebEffective screenshot

3.5.13 m-pathy44 This tool does not require any installation on the user´s computer. The main simplicity of m‐

pathy is in the tracking of mouse‐movements and clicks. Even though the site is in German is

work to use the online translator tools in order to try it out.

43 http://www.userzoom.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/05/UserZoom_brochure_article_Feb11.pdf 44 http://www.m‐pathy.com/



Figure 20 M‐pathy screenshot

3.5.14 ChalkMark45 This tool has been developed by Optimal Workshop. The added value of ChalkMark is that

enables users to accomplish tasks on static images resulting in a “heat map” where all the

mouse concentration is. Each tasks is limited by a single click therefore this is very suitable

for quick and simple tests.

Figure 21 ChalkMark screenshot

45 http://www.optimalworkshop.com/chalkmark.htm



3.5.15 SMT (Simple Mouse Tracking)46 Is a tracking system to follow and record the mouse activity on a web page, with the

proposal to study and infers the user behavior. It is an open source client‐server that enables

to trace where users click, highlights and time spent by users in a given site. Eye tracking is

too expensive hence there is a strong correlation between the eye‐movement and the one

activated by the mouse.

Figure 22 Simple Mouse Tracking screenshot

3.5.16 Loop1147

Loop11 is a remote testing tool that allows you to create an online survey including tasks to

be accomplished by users. These tasks are moderated by the administrator. The way to

charge is by task/question, summing $25 each. Users are provided by the tool. There is a

group of professionals behind structuring and helping out with your project. At the moment

is one of the most popular UX remote testing services with over 11,000 account holders.

3.6 Analysis of Tools results

Feedforward mechanisms are nowadays understood as validation ideas portal. These

portals have different features depending what is their main aim and who leads the portal.

As it was stated in the description of existing tools the most successful portals are the ones

which present their ideas as challenges for researches. These challenges, when they are

posted by private entities offer a monetary reward, nonetheless when these challenges are

presented by a person in need or a charity, the incentive is normally nonmaterial.

46 http://smt.speedzinemedia.com/ 47 http://www.loop11.com/



Innocentive is the epitome of the money based challenge site, being the most famous one in

this nature. Yet2 goes further being an open innovation market place, since there are

finished designs and licensed to be sold. Ninesigma also connects external innovation

resources in order to be hired. In this last two, the inventor/developer offer what he has

created at first or his initial ideas.

Related to specific sectors, we have found Grabcad, which operates as an open innovation

repository for CAD files in the cloud or AutoHarvest which intends to channeled the open

innovation in the auto industry in order to connect researchers with investors and industry.

A tool that should be studied separately is the one launched by startup Pickfu. This tool

enables you to get 50 responses of your idea instantly. This feature is interesting in itself

since this survey based enginge seems very interesting .

Ideas4all is also a validation ideas portal where initiatives are voted by users democratically

and not by an expert committee. The procedure is similar to Pickfu, but this project intends

to be a community rather than only a survey tool. In the field of social innovation there are

two complementary portals (both in Spanish), Nuez and Uninnova. Nuez portal has created a

scheme for which users rate social innovation projects funding the most voted ones. Experts

also validate in committee some stages of the selection. Uninnova intends to connect

university researchers with users and user organizations in order to match both demands

and proposals.

For the Prosperity4all ecosystem, it would be interesting to have a challenge dashboard in

order to identify what are the needs of certain users in order to be checked by developers.

As it was noted in the interviews, the average user questioned when had a need related to

technology; he/she first asked a user organization about the possibilities. The immediate

conclusion is that many of these challenges can be opened by user organizations since they

are normally the ones which best convey the demands of their members.

The dashboard in which the needs or “challenges” are posted should have a review system

since many of the things demanded by the average user already exist but have not been

found. The different fora moderation techniques can be applied here. This enables the

polishing and review of the questions in order to have a fully functional dashboard.

Regarding user communities is obvious that individuals use intensively social networks. The

debate on whether user groups are within social networks or outside is almost irrelevant

due to the fact that even if these user communities are outside, there is always a social

network channel in order to get there, share content, etc. As it can be seen in the

description of groups, some highly specialized yahoo and Google groups have survived even

though they all tend to move 2.0. The most stable user communities tend to be very

specialized around certain topics such as Tifoclub Hispania, Deaf‐UK and Lisorci (related to a

user group). It is relevant to point out the increase in use of social network Quora. It is



impossible to say it is only a use community due to the vast amount of world renown experts

participating neither it is just for experts. The state of the art questions related to

technology, user participation, etc are there. Therefore a connection with this social network

is desirable.

Crowdfunding and Crowdsourcing sites are going to be essential components for

Prosperity4all future developments. Crowdsourcing for users to test, report bugs and help in

small tasks will be at the core of the proposed P4all ecosystem. Regarding the reviewed sites

of crowdfunding any of the three reviewed are working well, even though maybe Kickstarter

is channeling most of the attention. P4all will intend to channel crowdfunding project to

these sites. Regarding crowdsourcing, the activity on this matter will be more intense. From

reporting bugs to review content and functionalities as the Wikipedia works, crowdsourcing

schemes should be included in every new bit of code developed within P4all ecosystem.

CoFundOS platform is a good example of this scheme, even some of the developers

communities reviewed in the next paragraphs such as Github of Bitbucket function with a

similar scheme of open participation/innovation.

Developers Communities are a highly structured and intense network of repository sites

along with wikis, for a and so on. The most famous ones are Github and Bitbucket.

Furthermore, regarding sites for finding questions and answers Stackoverflow is the main

one. It is important to remark the moderation system also based upon reputation in order to

structure questions and answers. Some of these repositories give also service for software

production companies. Therefore the development of P4all tools should have a connection

to the main software repositories since they are becoming very important hubs for the

sector. Furthermore according to developers, one of the main places to evangelize on

accessibility are those repositories.

Remote testing and user surveying are the two most common techniques to obtain

feedback from users. The remote testing tests can be moderated or unmoderated. These

tools are being used mostly by private companies in order to improve the navigation

experience or the user experience of their software. Even though there are some open

source alternatives, the best remote testing tools are still licensed under fees (an average of

350€). Nonetheless, here the surplus value does not come only from the tool as such but

from the users willing to take and participate in that test. A user panel is essential in order to

gain user feedback. Developers show the need to get constant feedback even though they

do not agree on how to get it. Moreover, the problem of these communities is that testers

are mainly developers therefore; user recruitment is normally an issue. All in all many

developers have also expressed their preference with simplicity having only survey based

methods in order to get feedback.



4 Observation and In-Depth interviews results

From the transcription of the 26 interviews and two observations done in both Guadalinfo

Centres (Pizarra and cartama) as well as the interviews done to 11 disabled users of

FUNDOSA, here are a summary of the main results that latter will be part of the personas,

scenarios and requirements. The results are grouped firstly around where they took place

and secondly around the variables defined previously as a very basic exploratory way to get

to know average users.

Figure 23 Picture during an observation in Cártama

4.1 Guadalinfo Centres Results For the group of people with low computer literacy under 50 years the result of the

observation and in‐depth interviews is that computers and technology were a source of

future employment or at least training for getting a job. The common aspect that they

highlighted is that they have not managed technology enough time. General literacy tended

to be low, most users merely finished highschool (with one exception who is a nurse). By far

the main contact with technology among these people is the smart phone. They prefer the

use of smartphones rather than computers, since according to them they are far more

intuitive.

A surprising feature for the researcher is that even though there has been an important

effort by public administration opening these centers in rural areas and allocating equipment

and teachers, the Open Source operative system is too complicated to be operated by novel

users. The main navigability through windows and options is completely different from a

standard windows, mac or android. Users in both Guadalinfo centres many times had to

write down the paths in order to access to web browsers, folders, etc. Once they were



already logged‐in, the process looked easier. Therefore an initial remark is that even though

Open Source is for many reasons a desirable option, usability cannot be undermined,

especially if we are talking about centers targeted at bridging the digital breach.

Therefore spelling is many times a problem for these users. That is why the facilitator relays

very much in the predicted and typing corrector. Parallel to this the relation with a keyboard

is still rather new so the speed of typing is low. When surfing the web, pop ups, cookies and

other messages tended to distract very much the flow of the sessions. Many explanations

about the relation between hardware and software were made by the facilitators in a very

savvy way in order to be understood. In all sessions attended in Cártama, a simple operation

of storing some files in a pen drive was made. Some users requested to learn more about

how to edit their CV documents in a text processor, basically referring to pasting and framing

a photo or more editing options.

Regarding the group of elderly, their main motivation to learn about technology and

computers was to keep up with the world. The needs they located that could be met by

technology consisted of fulfillment, need to learn and communicating with relatives. The

lessons were a social act in themselves for these people where the sense of community is

rather high. With this group as with the one with low computer literacy, the smart phone is a

crucial gadget to understand technology. These users also highlighted the intuitiveness of

the android operative system. In the interviews some of these elderly users seemed to

distrust what it could happen to you when surfing the web. Some users expressed their

desired to learn more about technology in order to accomplish tasks such as creating

documents, writing letters or reading the news but refused the idea of social network.

Nonetheless most of the users who already had a Facebook account expressed a positive

opinion about it since it enabled them to contact with all friends, seeing family photos, etc.

Moreover most users wrote down navigation paths and practical explanations in order to

replicate them at home.

4.1.1 Facilitators As it was explained in the initial methodological description, when accomplishing

ethnographic research (participant observation, in‐depth interviews, etc), the key informant

role is the corner stone of the research. There are several reasons for that, from the

firsthand knowledge of inner dynamics as well as for gaining access to the environment and

other informants. In this case, key informants were easy to spot, being Guadalinfo

facilitators who are in charge of the center (teaching, registering, solving problems, etc).

Pizarra´s facilitator explained on his interview how users of the center do not normally come

back whenever they reach a level of decent computer literacy. He would like to take these

users further to teach the programming foundations and other techniques. He highlighted

the social act that the Guadalinfo lessons represented for the elderly since many of them

feel lonely and isolated. Apart from the social life, one of the things that attract elderly



people to learn and use technology is content related to their surroundings such as the

village website with pictures, the use of social networks, etc. He also commented how his

role as facilitator is not confined to just giving the programmed lessons to different groups

but to coach somewhat informally on electronic procedures for public administrations

(doctor´s appointment, social security extracts). He is as well as all facilitators in Andalucia

on temporary contracts which are being renewed every year. He is positive about the future

of this project due to the social sphere of the work serving as a local institution for electronic

help. Regarding Prospertiy4all ideas he highlighted the fact that users can contribute to this

ecosystem if they are tight to an institution (Guadalinfo, municipalities, local associations),

he was reluctant to the fact that people with low digital literacy or the elderly will sing up for

testing platforms, rate ideas by themselves. Hereby if the different Guadalinfo schemes (for

a, lessons) take the P4all infrastructure as part of the community. This infrastructure can be

successful

Cartama´s facilitator talked about the importance of work related issues for coming to

computing lessons. Most of the users have been hit by the crisis and want to catch up with

computers in order to gain skills or looking for a job. She also considered that smart phones

are the main gateway to technology to many people with low computer literacy. Moreover

many of the users show up in those centers in order to create a Facebook account for

themselves or making a CV to be submitted to employers. Most of the issues highlighted by

Pizarra´s facilitator were also mentioned by Cartama´s one such as the role played by these

centres overtaking the computer training. According to the demand, different ad hoc

workshops were organized such as “creating a CV”, “Opening a Facebook account”, etc.

Many individuals demand also come to this centre regarding administrative procedures,

checking information, etc. The number of people signing up for training lessons are normally

less than the ones who turn up asking for help in order to demand something (i.e doctor´s

appointment, printing out some information, etc).

4.2 Interviews in FSC The profiles who had a highest computer literacy were the ones with severe impairments

such as the blind user ass well as the lip reader deaf user. The blind user explained how

essential is for her the use of technology and how disrupting is when websites are not

accessible. She was the one who look more active in terms of user groups related to

technology highlighting also mailing lists.

The user with Down syndrome was interviewed along with his father and according to both,

this user feels more engaged with everyone through technology than without it. He is the

one who helps his father (58 years old) with technology. In this case as with other profiles,

technology enables equality and fulfillment.

There were two deaf users who were lip readers; both of them relied very much on

technology in order to overcome their impairments. Whatsapp and text messaging in



general enable them a suitable way to communicate. Both users went to University and have

professional experience on their field. They did not highlight any important technological

barrier in order to accomplish their work (one as a librarian and other as an accountant).

The two borderline users did not remark any barrier found when using technology apart

from the usual ones confronted by every user (too much publicity, etc). Both users

mentioned their need to work, and the use of the internet in order to look for job offers.

The user with dyslexia talked about the great opportunities of technology for people with

their condition. He mentioned the automatic text correction as well as the video alternative

for many things. His use of technology is very much oriented to his studies since according to

him, when something gets complex he looks for alternative ways to understand it (video,

infographs, etc). He uses social networks intensively in order to talk and share photos with

friends.

The first user with low vision explained that he only needs a screen magnifier therefore his

barriers only surround the availability of it in different devices and its costs. He has personal

experience as a consultant and normally the company provided with this software.

According to him, this software program levels him with the rest of the people and enables

to meet many of his needs such as communication, working, leisure, etc. The second user

with low vision explained that she does not need any assistive technology in particular;

nonetheless she always has to arrange the letter size in order to make it bigger. An

automatic personalization as Cloud4all intends would be very beneficial for her. The main

barriers found by her, are the ones related by people´s prejudices since she finds no huge

obstacles to function normally. The two users with mobility problems in reality had more

problems related to back pain than with dexterity but according to her this is a problem for

sitting down for long hours in front of a computer. According to them, the use of smart

phone is far more ergonomic. These back problems when irradiating to upper limbs make

typing difficult. She pointed out that the voice recognition feature in smartphones is very

helpful for her since it makes the whole operation much easier.

4.3 Needs As it was stated in the methodology section, apart from giving the results by site and profile,

we would also respond textually to what were the needs users have from observations and

interviews. Here is a textual response following a set of synthesis in a table:

In people below 45 years old, the main incentive to learn about computers, and navigate the

internet is related to the need to either look for a job, or to learn these skills for a future job.

The second main drive is just the fact of not being left behind. This is common to all profiles

but more prevalent among the elderly. The sense of being updated with technology and the

fear of being left behind were very common during our interviews. Therefore there is even a

relation with prestige or social capital in the Bourdieu sense. Young users with any kind of



disability consider technology as a mean to overcome limitations as well as an essential item

of their everyday life. The proportion of time spent in social networks or for communication

purposes is almost equally spent for study‐work related issues. Getting information for study

among students is overwhelmingly present among young users, education and study is not

conceivable without technology and the internet. When some software is needed, young

users (independently whether they are disabled or not) tend to search it on Google whereas

elder users and users with less digital literacy tend to ask relatives or people on their

surroundings. Disabled users express more the need to be in contact with their close family.

The main communication device is the smart phone. Blind users highlight the fact that if it is

not a too complex task, they prefer to use the smart phone due to their simplicity.

Communication needs among deaf users is marked by the use of video conferencing no

matter whether they are lip readers or they use sign language. Regarding the profiles

interviewed and observed, blinds and deaf users are the ones who have the stronger need to

have contact with those of the same condition as them. The rest of disabilities do not have

that need. Especially regarding technology problems or sharing tips, blinds and deaf users

rely on themselves for technology matters. An important fact to highlight is that whenever

there is a need by a collective, this is normally expressed through collective forms such as

associations, interest groups, etc. The user as an individual can trigger that demand being

heard by those organizations.

Table 5: Needs Synthesis

Needs Synthesis Profiles

The issues related to work are present. No matter if the

internet is used to look for a job or if people want to learn

how to navigate and use technology in order to be more

qualified for a future job, this concept has been recurrent in

the interviews

Mostly expressed by

people with low

computer literacy

under 45 but also

expressed by all

disabled people

There is a sense of being left behind if the person does not

engage with technology. Somewhat related to social prestige

or even social capital

Specially among the

elderly in Guadalinfo

Centres and women

under 45 with low

computer literacy

Due to the fact that many social activities are coordinated or

noticed through social networks. The need to be tight to a

community is connected to technology. Not necessarily

replacing the community, rather coordinating it

This is common to all

profiles



Needs Synthesis Profiles

The need to be communicated with close friends and relatives

(sharing photos, exchanging messages)

Common to all profiles

but more prevalent

among all disabled

users and the elderly

Need to use technology for basic actions as an adaptation (i.e

blind people use of screen readers and deaf people use of

textmessaging through WhatsApp

Confined to Blind user

and deaf users

4.4 Navigation and use patterns In order to approach the baseline, users were observed and asked about their use patterns

related to technology as well as navigation, here is the textual result of the notes taken from

the field diary:

Facebook and Google are the undisputed most visited and used webpages. It was estimated

by users that half of their time on average was navigating through these two web services.

Google search engine is the gateway to the internet. How to search for items is one of the

first lessons taught at Guadalinfo. The use of mobile phone is becoming hegemonic among

all kinds of users. On the one hand users with low digital literacy stated that they have

started to learn about technology from the mobile phone. During the observations, many

users who did not remember how to accomplish certain tasks, had to check their phones,

therefore they have their smart phones as primary references to check their email, etc. The

usability for novel users is astonishing according to elder users and users with low computer

skills. Regarding disabled people, it really depends on the nature of activity they are doing

and the context. Blind and deaf users rely very much on their mobile phone as an essential

device for survival. The use of the ATM had little to do with digital literacy but with trust or

opportunity to use it. In the interviews held in both villages, there were an important

number of users who did not trust ATMs. Family pictures either taken or shared are part of

the everyday language of communication. Some users expressed that seeing or taking

pictures of their grandsons or relatives was a good incentive to get to know more about

technology.

Table 6: Navigation and use patterns synthesis

Navigation and use patterns synthesis Profiles

Mailing lists and google/yahoo groups are still functioning for

centain profiles. Even though the activity is declining

Confined to blind and

deaf people



Navigation and use patterns synthesis Profiles

The smart phone is the main device used to be connected to

internet and a guide to learn for beginners. Nonetheless for

certain activities such as working, reading in‐depth, etc they

prefer a computer

All profiles. Begginers

with technology start

mainly with

smartphones.

Building a CV in a text processor has been detected as a

recurrent feature. The first experience with text processors

has come with this process

People with low

computer literacy

under 45 years old

Coming from the sense of community, users relate to

organisations in order to get information such as ONCE,

Guadalinfo.

The elderly and

disabled interviewed

In order to participate into testing platforms, users must have

a clear incentive.

All users

Community belonging or a social cause is more than enough

many times as an incentive

Disabled users

especially

Closing a doctor´s appointment is a usual move for many users Elderly

The use of banking ATM machines is more related to trust and

security than with technology literacy as such

Elderly, Blind, Cognitive

4.5 Challenges and obstacles The use of the Keyboard is not an easy task for many users, especially for those with low

levels of computer literacy and the elderly. Moreover, related to this the accuracy needed

when typing normally presents a problem for people with low levels of general literacy.

Users with cognitive problems share these concerns. Deaf users have a problem with screen

resolution and video quality, especially those who are lip readers. Blind users find it difficult

when websites are not accessible and their screen readers do not react, moreover when the

Operative System gives an error and the screen reader does not respond due to external

reasons, the blind user remains puzzled. Beginner Users prefer human contact when

learning something since they are not familiar with the computer environment, on the

contrary, users with a certain level of computer literacy prefer to learn by themselves The

main challenge for blind users is to learn and become familiar with the screen reader, after

that they are willing to learn everything by testing. Blind users relay very much on their

smartphone since their accessibility features are rather satisfactory. Deaf people apart from

the need and preference to communicate with others by videoconferencing have not shown

a huge interest in software that converts speech into typed language whereas an avatar with

sign language or lip reading would be welcomed. People with cognitive impairments apart

from some lack of language proficiency, showed a rather high mastery of technology that



may sound counterintuitive, therefore apart from some effort on simple language the rest of

the features of technology do not present huge obstacles.

Table 7: Challenges, obstacles and barriers synthesis

Challenges, obstacles and barriers synthesis Profiles

Publicity apart from being a hassle, many times confuse users All users, especially the

ones with low literacy

Spelling the words when they are not familiar (i.e technical or

in English)

Elderly users

The different Installation and pop‐up messages paralise the

user

Elderly and low literacy

users

Inability to face some technical problems (even minor) Elderly and low literacy

users

Price of the devices and internet connection All users

Popular and important videos without subtitles Deaf users

Inaccessible content in important websites (government,

doctor´s appointments, etc)

Especially blind users

Too technical vocabulary to mean simple things (or vocabulary

in other languages)

Cognitive disability and

the elderly



5 Personas, Scenarios and Requirements for Prototyping

Besides the exploratory and descriptive study, the aim of this report is to initiate a set of

requirements for prototyping; the bridge between the results is made by describing the

different workflows through personas and scenarios. These tools are the initial point of

understanding between social researchers and developers. Personas and scenarios are the

main hypothesis of social researchers in order to be studied by developers. Finally

requirements are the operalisation of the workflows described and an agreement between

both parts, developers and social researchers.

5.1 Personas Personas are fictional characters in a narrative in order to picture the archetype user. This is

normally together with some sort of market segmentation; the personas are actually the

qualitative description of those segments. Through the personas, goals, desires, limitations

and interactions of those characters can be understood. In interaction design (IxD), this

technique is useful to bridge the gap between the initial qualitative or quantitative research

and the final requirements and prototyping (Horton, 2014). In this case, the following

personas are based on the ethnographic research (online and field) as well as in the desk

research. Even though the attachment with strict reality is not the ultimate purpose, a solid

grasp of scientific backing from observations and interviews is present. The objective of

these personas is to bridge the gap between research and development. They are showed as

a result of the research and also as a starting point for P4all component development.

Personas are the first step of this process being scenarios the second one.

5.1.1 Individuals at Organisations Luisa is a project manager in charge of many different programs at the national blind

association. She has a degree in social work as well as a master in social intervention. Since

2009 Luisa has been working in a wide variety of projects related to accessibility for blind

people in education. Even though she is not blind herself, she has become an expert about

the accessibility features and needs of that segment. On a daily basis, either from blind users

who have been part of different programs or from engineers, she gets many questions about

technology. Therefore she gets to here many demands, challenges, problems and

opportunities faced by blind users. These ideas and suggestions are coming from a wide

range of actors (policy, institutional, etc.) but mostly users.

Kevin works in the field of job training for people with cognitive impairments at LOCAM, a

national association that stands for the welfare of cognitive disabled people. Kevin is in

charge of giving support to the network of disabled workers and employers in order to

accomplish a real integration at work. Accessibility is the corner stone of Kevin´s work. Even

though he is not an expert in technology, he is getting more and more familiar with it.



5.1.2 Users and Carers (relatives) Carl and Brenda are siblings. Brenda is the elder sister who has always been very helpful to

Carl who was born deaf. Carl is able to lipread even though he prefers to express and

communicate through sign language. Brenda is an expert on deafness and its characteristic

and also has been coaching Carl around technology use. Carl is finishing high school whereas

Brenda is finishing university.

5.1.3 Advanced users James is a young professional who was born blind. With the help of technology he manages

to accomplish his work as an accountant in a law firm. James is passionate about technology

since he feels that helps himself to unleash his potential. Apart from his use of technology at

work he is becoming on what in the popular language is known as computer geek in the field

of accessibility. Moreover James is rather active the local branch of the national blind

association where he mentors young people who are also blind.

5.1.4 Software Developers Thomas is a 36 year old Software developer who is interested in technology for inclusion. He

used to work for a software development company but since 2012 he works as a freelance

programmer taking up projects that he develops with a network of colleagues. He has

scheduled to reserve some time of the year to research, learn and implement new

technology in order to keep up with the latest advances, at the same time that he does any

good to society or people in need. He has participated in some hackathons, and projects that

have built important software for blind people.

5.2 Scenarios These are the initial scenarios drafted according to the field and desk research of primary

and secondary sources. Scenarios are the second step of the process of bridging results with

functional requirements and development. They are a culmination on what researchers

intend to conclude for a latter development of Prosperity4all tools.

5.2.1 Scenario A-YouTube for colorbind App Luisa, from the national blind association finds the need to develop a mobile app that can

translate the color of YouTube videos for colorblind people. This is a rather complicated task

due to the wide variety of colorblind features. Nonetheless they publish this idea in

kickstarter and simultaneously ask for developers willing to take this task in crowdsourcing

portals. The national blind association is active in informing developers about the different

profiles and color combinations, all this done with the P4all tool. When there is an initial

prototype this is tested also within the P4all scheme. Surveys, remote testing and interviews

are done with the P4all tool in order to tune up the final result.



5.2.2 Scenario B-Capturing Accessibility Bugs James uses the screen reader software in order to operate with his computer at work. There

is a problem with some of the work he is revising as some of the graphs are not explained

with labels as they should be. In order to ask for help, James first uses Prosperity4all bugging

report in order to record the problem and forward it in to a college. This bug is noticed by

the company, and someone from the “crowd” or from work records an explanation of the

graph.

5.2.3 Scenario C-Looking for haptic communication developers Brenda is Carl´s sister; she is looking for ways to improve Carl´s communication since he is

deaf. She has heard about the possibilities of haptic communication. According to Brenda, if

a device like a mobile phone or a wristband can vibrate in different ways meaning different

things, that shows a lot of possibilities. Brenda contacts a group of developers who are

familiar to this technology and opens a fundraising campaign in Kickstarter. The

requirements capture is done through Prosperity4all tool as well as the initial prototypes

and final tests.

5.2.4 Scenario D-Augmented reality for work LOCAM is an active foundation on the field of incorporation of cognitive disabled people to

the labor force. They have realized the potentialities of augmented reality in the field of

cognitive accessibility. Due to the fact that they have already worked with the use of tablets

by disabled users at work in order to get instructions, order tasks etc. LOCAM want to help

to develop an app that can give instructions about the use of devices when taking a picture

of them. By adapting an explanation on the use of a photocopy and laundry machines only

when shooting at them and different components this app may start a revolution in helping

people with cognitive problems to accomplish tasks at work.

5.2.5 Scenario E-Object recognition app Thomas is a freelance developer who is interested in technology for inclusion. At the same

time he likes to research about new technologies in order to incorporate them to his

services. He has been doing some work related to object recognition in the field of gaming

but nonetheless he sees many applications in the field of disability. He would like to offer a

project to develop an app that can identify objects previously recorded by taking a picture of

the area. If the object is in the area, the app will give positive feedback. He would need some

funding and users willing to survey and test.

5.3 Requirements In this final section, an initial draft of the requirements needed to be developed in order to

engage the customer over the whole cycle. The two main ideas behind the later

developments are tailored around three concepts; survey tool (for asking about validating,



testing, rating, etc.), user panel (storing users, managing incentives, communicating with

them) and connection with social networks and other communities (validation schemes,

developers communities and crowd funding sites)

Table 8: Requirements table

Component Requirement Comments

User panel Login Possibility to utilize ‘single

sign in’ and log in with

Facebook or Google+

User panel User inscription data base (through a questionnaire)

This is to convey the

minimum demographic data

User panel User inbox In order to communicate

with the user

User panel Posibiltiy to operate with the data

Export the date into spread

sheets

Survey tool Connection with the user panel

Survey tool Posibility to edit questions in multiple forms

Multiple answer, open

answer, pictures, etc

Survey tool Survey In order to measure

satisfaction, record

demographic information

etc. Survey Monkey type

survey would be enough

Survey tool Different modules a)For rating projects and

ideas. b)for testing software‐

webs, etc. c)For testing

designs, look and feels,

Connected to Connection with the main users and developers portals

Stackoverflow, Quora,

Github.

Connected to Connection with social networks

Facebook, Twitter, Google



Component Requirement Comments

Connected to Widget that can be easily installed in order to report on bugs, errors or suggestions

The widget refers as a small

button that is continually on

the screen, linking to a page

where the issue and a

screenshot must be

completed

Connected to Connection with the main ideas validation portals or communities

Innocentive, Kickstarter,

Rockhub,Ideas4all

Widget connecting communities

Small widget installed that connects the Prosperity4all tool with organic existing communities

Social Network Communities

of disabled people, yahoo

and Google groups,

nscodecentre, etc

Common to all Bilingual Spanish and English

Common to all Integration The final tool must convey

all components and the user

should see it as one

Common to all Accessibility Needless to say that the tool

must be accessible

Common to all Interoperability These tests must be also

suitable to be carried out in

smart phones



6 Conclusion

This deliverable is the first one of Work Package 206: “Sustainable Meaningful Consumers‐

Developer Connections (Pull vs Push) which intends to go through the “Best ways to engage

consumers over time” serving as a baseline for developers in order to accomplish

T206.2: Creation of feedforward mechanisms for directing future development

efforts.

T206.3 Creation of Consumer Participatory R&D Mechanisms

T206.4 Creation of Feedback and FeedPeer systems

T206.5 Creation of consumer‐mainstream communication dimension to Unified

Listing

All the objectives of this deliverable were successfully fulfilled in the following way:

In order to determine what consumers want with regard to the ability to provide feedback

(01) a field study observing and interviewing users was made. The wide variety of profiles

enabled us to propose a basic research study in which a baseline scenario was launched. In

order to successfully implement P4all components and tools a connection with the natural

navigation (currently social networks) is a duty.

For the identification of tools and channels used by developers and consumers, (O2) a

combination of virtual ethnography in the most famous sites was made along with a

traditional desk research. A myriad of tools have been found and described. The common

feature is the rising fragmentation and the need to unify the existing free tools channeling

users through them, instead of building new ones.

The assessment of the connection of future P4all developments with social networks (O3)

backed by the results found in the four techniques used (observations, in‐depth interviews,

virtual ethnography and desk research), is that social networks are the internet highways.

From users with low computer literacy to experienced developers, the use of social networks

is intensive. The final success of P4all tools will depend on how smartly this connection with

the most popular social networks is made. Nonetheless, this connection cannot be designed

to be static but prepare for changes. This means to include the latest form of social network

emerging into P4all (being facebook five years ago, twitter four, Google+ three or instagram

two). Developer’s needs (O4) have been identified through the virtual ethnography and desk

research, being constant feedback the most repeated item among them in fora on UX for

developers. Moreover there is no agreement on the way that constant feedback should be

displayed.

In the end the research work has been comprised into personas, scenarios and initial

requirements in order to bridge the gap between Prosperity4all research and the

development of tools.



7 Bibliography

Andreasen, M. S., Nielsen, H. V., Schroder, S. O., & Stage, J. (2007). What happened to

remote usability testing? . SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems (p. 1405). London : Routledge.

Bryman, A. (2010, February ). Referenceworld/socialscience . Retrieved March 15, 2014, from

Referenceworld :

http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf

Buchanan, D. A. (1988). Doing research in organizations . London: Routledge.

Chalil Madathil, K., & Greenstein, J. S. (2011). Synchronous remote usability testing: a new

approach facilitated by virtual worlds. Annual conference on Human Factors in

computing systems (pp. 2225‐2234). London: Routledge.

Clifford, J. (1997). Spatial Practices: Fieldwork, Travel, and the Discipline of Anthropology. In

G. &. Ferguson, Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science

(pp. 185‐222). Berkeley : University of California Press.

Dray, S. S. (2004). Remote possiblites?. Interactions. Berkley : University of California Press .

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage .

Horton, S. (2014, April 7). Uxmag.com Book excerpt of "A web for everyone". Retrieved

January 10, 2015, from Uxmag: http://uxmag.com/articles/book‐excerpt‐a‐web‐for‐

everyone

Kozinets, R. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: Sage

Publications.

Nussbaum, M. (2004). Promoting Women´s Capabilities. New York: Global Tensions .

Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd‐funding: Transforming

customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service

Management Research , 45‐70.

Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Warren, C. (204, January 17). Mashable.com. Retrieved September 25, 2014, from Machable

uploads : http://mashable.com/wp‐

content/uploads/2011/01/kickstarter_graphic_v2‐1.jpg



8 Annex

8.1 Online Ethnography selected material Here is a selection of the material obtained from the virtual ethnography effort. The

questions are grouped around topics related to our object of study such as testing, user

engagement, etc.

8.1.1 Testing input

Table 9: Virtual ethnography material (testing input)

Topic Question and link

Testing What is the best way to invite users to beta tests?

Link : http://www.quora.com/What‐is‐the‐best‐way‐to‐invite‐users‐to‐beta‐

tests

Testing What is the best way to keep beta users engaged?

Link: http://www.quora.com/Beta‐Tests/What‐is‐the‐best‐way‐to‐keep‐

beta‐users‐engaged

Testing What are some good user feedback management tools?

Link: http://www.quora.com/What‐are‐some‐good‐user‐feedback‐

management‐tools

Testing How do GetSatisfaction and UserVoice compare? Is either product clearly

better than the other?

Link: http://www.quora.com/How‐do‐GetSatisfaction‐and‐UserVoice‐

compare‐Is‐either‐product‐clearly‐better‐than‐the‐other

Testing When iterating on a product, what's the most effective way to quickly get

good user feedback?

Link: http://www.quora.com/When‐iterating‐on‐a‐product‐whats‐the‐most‐

effective‐way‐to‐quickly‐get‐good‐user‐feedback




Testing What questions should you ask users about a mobile app at launch to get

the best and most useful feedback?

Link: http://www.quora.com/Mobile‐Applications/What‐questions‐should‐

you‐ask‐users‐about‐a‐mobile‐app‐at‐launch‐to‐get‐the‐best‐and‐most‐

useful‐feedback

Testing Program for testing IOS app before submission?

Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11953893/program‐for‐testing‐

ios‐app‐before‐submission?lq=1

Testing Versión de prueba de mi app ¿Demo o Lite?48

Link: http://www.nscodecenter.com/preguntas/1763/versi%C3%B3n‐de‐

prueba‐de‐mi‐app‐demo‐o‐lite

Testing ¿Cómo es el proceso para testear una aplicación?49

Link: http://www.nscodecenter.com/preguntas/267/como‐es‐el‐proceso‐

para‐testear‐una‐aplicaci%C3%B3n

Testing ¿Cómo hacer unit test del tiempo en una app?50

Link: http://www.nscodecenter.com/preguntas/6083/como‐hacer‐unit‐test‐

del‐tiempo‐en‐una‐app

8.1.2 User input and ideas validation

Table 10: Virtual ethnography material (user input and ideas validation)


48 Testing version of my app ¿Demo or Lite? 49 How is the process of testing an application? 50 How to do an unit test of time for an app?




User Input

and ideas

validation

Requirement gathering in absence of user involvement?

Link: http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/8748/requirement‐gathering‐

in‐absence‐of‐user‐involvement?rq=1

User Input

and ideas

validation

What tools/methods do you use to get from a project kickoff to

wireframes?

Link: http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/7925/what‐tools‐methods‐

do‐you‐use‐to‐get‐from‐a‐project‐kickoff‐to‐wireframes?rq=1

User Input

and ideas

validation

Where to begin when designing a User Interface?

Link: http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/6735/where‐to‐begin‐when‐

designing‐a‐user‐interface/6738#6738

User Input

and ideas

validation

Need a simple UX game for workshop

Link: http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/need‐a‐simple‐ux‐

game‐for‐workshop?rq=1

User Input

and ideas

validation

What are some resources for activities / games to teach User‐Centered

Design?

Link: http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/36963/what‐are‐some‐

resources‐for‐activities‐games‐to‐teach‐user‐centered‐design?lq=1

User Input

and ideas

validation

How do you find out what users really want?

Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/415260/how‐do‐you‐find‐out‐

what‐users‐really‐want?rq=1

User Input

and ideas

validation

What are the best technologies to use for behavior‐driven development on

the iPhone? And what are some open source example projects that

demonstrate sound use of these technologies?

Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4114083/ios‐tests‐specs‐tdd‐bdd‐

and‐integration‐acceptance‐testing



8.1.3 Crowdfunding input

Table 11: Virtual ethnography material (Crowdfunding input)


Crowdfunding

and

Crowdsourcing

What are the best tools for crowdsourcing ideas? Looking to engage a

mainstream community, ideally locally on our site via an embed.

Link: https://www.quora.com/Crowdsourcing/What‐are‐the‐best‐tools‐for‐

crowdsourcing‐ideas

Crowdfunding

and

Crowdsourcing

What are the best practices in crowdsourcing?

Link: https://www.quora.com/Crowdsourcing/What‐are‐the‐best‐practices‐

in‐crowdsourcing

Crowdfunding

and

Crowdsourcing

How to setup paypal for crowdfunding portal

Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17798713/how‐to‐setup‐paypal‐

for‐crowdfunding‐portal

Crowdfunding

and

Crowdsourcing

Is there a crowdfunding web service for programmers?

Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1282756/is‐there‐a‐

crowdfunding‐web‐service‐for‐programmers

Crowdfunding

and

Crowdsourcing

Is there a crowdfunding web service for programmers?

Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1282756/is‐there‐a‐

crowdfunding‐web‐service‐for‐programmers

8.1.4 User engagement input

Table 12: Virtual ethnography material (user engagement input)


User

engagement

What are some good incentives or methods to get users to generate

content?

Link: http://www.quora.com/What‐are‐some‐good‐incentives‐or‐methods‐

to‐get‐users‐to‐generate‐content




User

engagement

¿Hay alguna forma de responder a los comentarios de los usuarios de mis

apps?51

Link: http://www.nscodecenter.com/preguntas/1357/hay‐alguna‐forma‐de‐

responder‐a‐los‐comentarios‐de‐los‐usuarios‐de‐mis‐apps

User

engagement

¿Cuál es la mejor manera de saber lo que el usuario necesita/quiere o

prefiere antes de desarrollar y testear un producto? 52

Link: http://www.nscodecenter.com/preguntas/15227/cu%C3%A1l‐es‐la‐

mejor‐manera‐de‐saber‐lo‐que‐el‐usuario‐necesita‐quiere‐o‐prefiere‐antes‐

de‐desarrollar‐y‐testear‐un‐producto

User

engagement

What are some methods of analyzing a website for user experience,

usability, and accessibility?

Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1770114/what‐are‐some‐

methods‐of‐analyzing‐a‐website‐for‐user‐experience‐usability‐and?rq=1

User

engagement

Are there any platforms/websites online for simple idea validation?

Link: http://www.quora.com/Are‐there‐any‐platforms‐websites‐online‐for‐

simple‐idea‐validation

User

engagement

How can I motivate my users to add a screenshot to a bug report?

Link: http://www.quora.com/How‐can‐I‐motivate‐my‐users‐to‐add‐a‐

screenshot‐to‐a‐bug‐report

User

engagement

What is the best user feedback system/service I could use to get and

manage feature requests and bug reports for a small collection of free web

applications, without spending any money?

Link: http://www.quora.com/What‐is‐the‐best‐user‐feedback‐system‐

service‐I‐could‐use‐to‐get‐and‐manage‐feature‐requests‐and‐bug‐reports‐

for‐a‐small‐collection‐of‐free‐web‐applications‐without‐spending‐any‐

money

51 Is there any way to answer user comments of my App? 52 What is the best way to figure out what the user wants or prefer before designing or developing a product?




User

engagement

What is the best user feedback system/service I could use to get and

manage feature requests and bug reports for a small collection of free web

applications, without spending any money?

Link: http://www.quora.com/What‐is‐the‐best‐user‐feedback‐system‐

service‐I‐could‐use‐to‐get‐and‐manage‐feature‐requests‐and‐bug‐reports‐

for‐a‐small‐collection‐of‐free‐web‐applications‐without‐spending‐any‐

money

8.2 Inquiry mail This is a sample of the inquiry mail informing about our project and inviting users to be involved:

Dear Sir/Madame

The Prosperity4all team is currently researching about the disabled users` and developers´ views on

feedback and feedforward mechanism regarding accessible software development. This is basically

on how disable users express their needs and how this information is transmitted to developers.

Moreover this project deals with the whole development cycle (Needs, requirements, ideas

validation, Alpha & Beta testing) and how to improve the interactions user‐developer in every stage.

We are interested in an in‐depth interview so that you can tell us what are the main flows, difficulties

and ideas that can improve the aforementioned process. The interview will take about 20 minutes

and we will try to cover 10 topics, all related with the user involvement in the whole development

process. Therefore, if you can find a timeslot and are willing to take this interview, let us know. We

are grateful in advance.

None the less, If you want to know more about the Prosperity4all project visit:

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Prosperity4All‐7467475 or contact [email protected]

we will be delighted to tell you more about the project development.

Kind Regards

Victor Manuel Hernández Ingelmo

Social Researcher at Fundosa Technosite

8.3 Informed Consent

Overall objective of Prosperity4all

Prosperity4all, focuses on developing the infrastructure to allow a new ecosystem to grow; one that

is based on self‐rewarding collaboration, that can reduce redundant development, lower costs,

increase market reach and penetration internationally, and create the robust cross‐platform

spectrum of mainstream and assistive technology based access solutions required. This will be done



through a process based on true value propositions for all stakeholders and resulting in a system that

can profitably serve markets as small as one, at a personally and societally affordable cost. This

infrastructure will use cloud, crowd, game and smart technologies, to bring new players with both

low and high technical skills into the development and delivery ecosystem, introduce accessibility as

a ubiquitous service, and combine auto‐configured access features built into mainstream products

with assistive technologies and services to create the rich milieu of options needed to bring this

diverse population of populations into our digital future.

Objective of this particular study

In order to deepen on what user´s needs are related to their capabilities and preferences,

Technosite´s team has decided to proceed to engage with users and developers in order to see the

connection points that could be developed. Regarding users, researchers are going to engage in

Guadalinfo centres in order to have a firsthand knowledge about what current status of user

navigation and needs they see, moreover in‐depth interviews will take place in order to know more

about this connection points such as social networks, games, etc.

On the developer side, a series of in depth interviews will take place in order to test some initial

ideas such as connection of existing user for a and social networks with developers ‘communities

All the information conveyed will be only used for research purposes and it will be treated according

to the Spanish law of data protection (LOPD 15/99) harmonized with the European Directives on the

topic.

Research findings will be published, therefore data concerning your demographic information and

first name will be public in such a way, as an example:

“Juan, a retired 68 year old Guadalinfo user who is learning to use internet finds difficult to log in in a

facebook app due to …”

If you want your first name to be changed, please specify it

You are aware that you can cancel the participation in this research any time you want

8.4 Interview Script First of all, we are delighted to have you as a legitimate voice for this Project, As it has been stated in

the initial explanation, this interview is part of the technical work carried out within the

Prosperity4all project with the aim of deepen into the topics of connection between disabled users

and developers throughout the whole development stages.

Profile data

Name:

Country:

Age:

Background: (fields to be defined in next iteration)



Developers Script

Regarding developers, the following scipt points intended to be touched are the following:

1. How do you or developers know what the disable user wants?

2. What is the use of online disabled communities for developers?

3. How would you use a crowdfunding scheme to support your development?

4. How do you test your developments?

5. How would you involve the largest number of disabled users in accessible development,

taking into account the estimative current use they make of internet?

6. What questions are crucial to you in validating an development idea?

7. What are the main issues of testing that remain unsolved?

8. What are the incentives of indie developers?

9. What are the pros and cons of moderated test and unmoderated test?

Users

Regarding users, the following script points intended to be touched are the following:

1. What do you use internet for? From this, pick three essential needs that internet enable to

fulfill

2. What are the difficult parts of using technology? Hardware problems/installing

programs/jargon/etc

3. What are the features that still have to improve for you?

4. Where do you go online (or offline) when you need something related to technology

(programs, plug‐ins, etc) do you go to for a? you post it in social networks?

5. How would you like to be contacted to test a tool that may be useful for you in order to test

is and give feedback?

8.5 Observation items Along with the field diary, the researcher used the following template in order to capture the

information from the participant observation.

Table 13: Observation items table

Stage Topic Components



Stage Topic Components

Pre‐Technology use User´s demographics

and data

Type of disability/Age/ socio‐

economic background/family, etc

Pre‐Technology use User Routines and habits Daily activities, duties,

responsabilties,

Pre‐Technology use User motivations Communication with friends &

family/ pursue of interests/ tackling

isolation etc

Pre‐Technology use User Needs Related to work information &

opportunities. Communication with

relatives or people with similar

interests

Technology Use User navigation

patterns

OS, web browser, social networks,

news aggregator, search engines,

Technology Use User ability to operate

with technology

Problem solving, fluency, jargon

understanding

new d206 1 best ways to engage customers overtime final · 2015. 3. 24. · ecosystem...

Documents