CrossCulturalReview < Main

---+C-TOC - Cross-Cultural Review Panel
Notes by Matthew Brehmer, M.Sc Researcher, UBC Dept. of Computer Sc.

%TOC%

---++ First Iteration: May 27, 2010

---+++ Introduction

   * Setup of C-TOC prototype on Douglas College computer lab: no security/admin issues - macros working successfully
   * refer to literacy education for seniors / immigrants - largely computer-based
   * refer to UBC learning exchange w/ DT east side (apparently 40yo = senior)
   * Claudia's introductory presentation
   * cultural advisory coordinators: Kymberley Bontinen, Patricia Juvik, Sai Roshni (Priya) Raju; CHCP (centre for health and community partnerships) project manager: Marina Niks
   * cultural advisory panel members (5, one missing)
      * Chinese, Japanese, South Asian, Southeast Asian, Latin American communities represented
      * Vivian Lam, Sayuri Sugawara, Kamaljit Kaur, Lam Dang, Karla Maranhao
      * recruited from community groups that interact w/ seniors in their respective communities
      * representative of health-care / extended care related positions, nursing, counselling
      * all members of the panel are immigrants

---+++ Interactive Prototype Session Notes

   * users: 5 panel members, M. Niks, R. Hsiung, S. Raju, K. Bontinen, P. Juvik (10 total)
   * difficulty realising what is a mockup and what is interactive (i.e. drop-down menus in introductory slides) - distinction may not be clear; 
      * suggestion: use a warning label in the future?
   * red prompts for referring to questionnaire not obvious enough - centre on screen rather than top-left? 
      * suggestion: include pictures representative of each test on the questionnaire as reminders / in case they have skipped ahead and forgotten the questionnaire
   * drag-and-drop habit hard to shake - everyone had difficulty with click-and-release moving of objects - some skipped the intro slide "move the blue circle into the square"; difficulty arose in sentence comprehension, which depended on this interaction; by this point many had developed an understanding of this interaction
      * will older users be similarly biased / used to traditional drag-and-drop? it requires constant motor pressure - did the panel understand this rationale for using click-and-release?
      * suggestion: try out traditional drag-and-drop in next prototype version and ask what is preferred
   * pattern construction instructions not well understood by some users; dragging to other areas of the screen aside from the target zone; for instance, covering the source shape;
      * one user puts all the component shapes back into the source area after completing the target shape; not sure why?
   * clicking on trails test not required but done by most users
      * suggestion: state that it is not necessary, provide animated instruction sequence
   * click+drag on a shape misaligns the cursor, decoupling it from the shape causing confusion and the possibility for the shape to be dropped off-screen, or being unable to click-to-release shape unless the cursor is clicked on top of the shape;
      * not much to be done - a fault of the PPT macro
   * square puzzles not fully interactive - some lines are still missing the drag/drop macro (#7 in particular)
   * "stack on top" instruction in sentence comprehension has potential for multiple interpretations: some users layer shapes, some place shapes above one another on screen
   * some go/no-go slides not advancing / hyperlink is broken and leads to an erroneous place in the slide deck
   * sentence production instructions are still missing the additional instruction to "use as many words as possible"
   * computers low on memory after opening 16 slide decks (will be resolved in non-ppt version)
   * most participants finished session in 1h20min; final participant in 1h30min ("too long!")

---+++ Focus Group Notes

   * Could handwriting be used as a diagnostic tool?
   * general consensus: this test will work well for well-educated, high-income, well-integrated people
   * problem w/ mouse drag-and-drop were vocalised
      * suggestion: avoid this by using touch-screens
   * request for audio instructions as optional feature for all test instructions; other instruction formats could include a flow diagram / animated step-by-step instructions
   * more practice sessions requested
   * language throughout the tests needs to be overhauled, cultural-specific terms discarded; possible to translate into other languages?
      * Similarities test especially sensitive to language norms
      * cultural-specific names in item recognition test misleading (i.e. "stationery item")
      * suggestion: allow family members to translate, but not help with task
   * provide an "I don't understand" option, a flag to de-validate a single test if necessary
   * community centre use case scenario: group members help one another take the test rather than family/caregivers (peer support)
      * identified shame in cognitive illness, acknowledging it in the household, esp. in South Asian community
   * suggestion: provide feedback on each test: descriptive time elapsed, # items correct, where you scored comparatively to pop. norms, past times taken
      * how to deliver potentially bad news over the net? instead direct to community resources regardless of test performance

   * next panel meeting (late October 15/28/29?)
      * suggestion: provide a shorter evaluation version of the test for cultural advisory panel (i.e. less trials per test), provide web-accessible version of next prototype version in October, allow them to take + fill out survey from home - likely not in PPT, but in interactive programmed version (Flex?)
      * longer focus group next time, allow discussion on interactivity of each test
      * more focus group members to be recruited

---++ Second Iteration: October, 2010

---++ Third Iteration: January, 2011

---
-- Main.MatthewBrehmer - 01 Jun 2010
This topic: Main > TWikiUsers > MatthewBrehmer > C-TOC > CrossCulturalReview
Topic revision: r2 - 2010-06-01 - MatthewBrehmer