4 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. The Javits Center is often used by urbanists as an example of the perils of inhumane design. The unused and un-policed periphery attracts crime and vagrancy while its one entrance opens upon an eight lane street. This combination means that most conference attendees hire a taxi to ferry them to a more hospitable neighborhood.

      This is an excellent example of creation without context, particularly use by target populations. Walkability was so poor that it negatively affected the area.

    2. The only way to reach the Public Square promenade from the street is to climb three flights of stairs onto the High Line, then cross a fairly narrow bridge connection. The street level features a large cafeteria, but like the 10th avenue perimeter, the sidewalks are so narrow and the road so heavily trafficked with vehicles that it is unlikely the street can thrive as a public space.

      Examples of why this space is not user-friendly and basically unwalkable. Those designing the space did not consider practicalities like access.

  2. Jan 2019
  3. wendynorris.com wendynorris.com
    1. For our research design, we drew on Walsham [33] and Klein and Myers [13],who provide comprehensive guidelines on how to conduct interpretive case studyresearch in the IS domain.

      Bookmarked as a reminder to get these papers which could be helpful for the participatory design study.

  4. Dec 2018
    1. Noguidance was given to the participants regarding what topography or function of behavior to choose, nor which client tochoose. The BIPs that were submitted included a wide range of behavior topographies and functions, as depicted inTables 2 and 3. The ages of the clients ranged significantly, but were roughly equivalent across the two groups, witha mean age of 8.75 years (range = 3–19) in the treatment group and a mean age of 7.75 years (range = 4–10) in thecontrol group. It seems reasonable that due to reactivity, participants would choose to send a BIP that they believedwas good-quality, however, this reactivity was likely to be equally distributed across groups. Each BIP was then scoredas the pre-test data for that participant. For participants in the control group, the participant was then asked to updatetheir BIP however they see fit over the next 24 h and resubmit it. For participants in the BIP builder group, they wereasked to update their BIP using the BIP builder within the next 24 h. No further instructions were given to theparticipants.