Accessible and Assistive ICT
VERITAS
Virtual and Augmented Environments and Realistic User
Interactions To achieve Embedded Accessibility DesignS
247765
Consolidated Peer Review Report
Deliverable No.
D4.5.3
Deliverable Title
White Paper on VERITAS
vision: Towards embedded
accessibility designs
Workpackage No.
4.5
Workpackage
Title
Guidelines, standardization
activities and policies
recommendations
Activity No.
4.5.2
Activity Title
Contribution to
standardization bodies and
policies promotion
Deliverable Authors
Konstantinos Moustakas (CERTH/ITI),
Konstantinos Votis (CERTH/ITI), Dimitrios
Tzovaras (CERTH/ITI), Mauro Da Lio (UNITN)
Quality Manager
Evangelos Bekiaris (CERTH/HIT)
Date of Review Document
20/07/2010
File Name
VERITAS_D4.5.3_Consolidated peer review
report
PROCEDURES USED FOR PEER REVIEW
The VERITAS Consortium uses the Peer Review process for its internal quality
assurance for deliverables to assure consistency and high standard for documented
project results.
The Peer Review is processed individually by selected reviewers. The allocated time
for the review is about two weeks. The author of the document has the final
responsibility to collect the comments and suggestions from the Peer Reviewers and
decide what changes to the document and actions are to be undertaken.
Reviewers:
External expert
-
1st Peer Reviewer
Antonella Arca (UPM)
2nd Peer Reviewer
Stavroula Ntoa (FORTH)
Quality Assurance Manager
Evangelos Bekiaris –CERTH/HIT
Overall Peer Review Result:
Deliverable is:
Fully
accepted
Accepted with
reservation
Rejected unless
modified as suggested
Fully
rejected
Overall rating of the Deliverable
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Poor
Very poor
COMMENTS OF PEER REVIEWERS
General Comments
The deliverable shows in a thorough way the current problems related to product
accessibility towards the VERITAS vision.
This document represents the white paper as well an important dissemination
means. In this way the executive summary should contain a high-level summary
about VERITAS on one page. Maybe a simple overview figure should be included.
Specific comments
Relevance
The document fully serves the purpose of a
white paper.
Author’s response
-
Response to user
needs
The deliverable describes in a clear and
readable way the useful information to
understand the current accessibility gaps and
how they are dealt with within VERITAS.
Author’s response
-
Methodological
framework soundness
The
methodological
framework
deliverable is generally sound.
of
the
Author’s response
-
Quality of
achievements
The quality of achievements is good. It should
be important to insert some references in the
information inserted in the introduction (i.e.:”
The lowest estimate, based on the currently
defined disablement categories, estimates their
total number at around 74 Million persons”.) in
order to emphasize the importance of the topic.
Author’s response
The deliverable has been modified accordingly.
New references have been added
Quality of presentation
In general the quality of achievement is very
good.
Author’s response
-
Deliverable
Layout/Spelling/Format
The following changes should be implemented:
-
Update the table of content
-
Page 5: Line 2. Change the word
“important” for “essential”.
-
Page 10: Line33. Delete one final point.
-
Page 16: Line 6. Change “designers” for
“designer’s”.
-
Page 19. Line 42. Change “cognitive” for
“cognitive”.
Author’s response
The deliverable has been corrected accordingly.
COMMENTS OF PEER REVIEWERS
General Comments
The Deliverable D4.5.3 “White Paper: Towards embedded accessibility designs”
discusses the issue of accessibility in the design and development of mainstream
ICT and non-ICT products, highlights current accessibility gaps and illustrates how
these are addressed within the VERITAS project. Furthermore, the deliverable
indicates potential forthcoming research activities that may emerge and build upon
the results of VERITAS.
In summary, it is well written, with clear focus and objectives. Most of the specific
comments provided below aim to enhance its comprehensiveness for the reader’s
benefit.
Specific comments
Relevance
Highly relevant
Author’s response
-
Response to user
needs
n/a
Author’s response
-
Methodological
framework soundness
The methodological framework presented is
sound
Author’s response
-
Quality of
achievements
Very good
Author’s response
-
Quality of presentation
The deliverable is well structured and easy to
follow.
However, please note that there is an
inconsistency with the figures’ numbering. In
more detail, there are two figures numbered 4,
namely the figure presenting VERITAS
architecture (p. 11) and the figure illustrating the
VERITAS User/Task Modeling Methodology (p.
13). The figures’ numbering also jumps from 5
to 7, to 9.
Furthermore, the introduction section might
need some revisions so as to be more coherent
and straightforward to the reader. Some
examples of points that need to be revisited or
further clarified are provided below:

The third paragraph of the introduction
section discusses the development of
mainstream non-ICT products and
services and the lack of structured
accessibility guidelines. In this context
the sentence “Thus it is a technological
challenge to provide senior citizens with
systems that could foster the different
facets in the perception of the quality of
life” needs to be further clarified.
Furthermore, in the same paragraph, it is
mentioned that “these systems… should
leverage
the
immersion
in
the
environments”.
This phrase is also
unclear. The authors refer to virtual or
physical environments? In the first case,
please clarify how virtual environments
are related to non-ICT products and
services, or provide an illustrative
example. In the second case, it is not
clear what could constitute an immersion
to a physical environment.

The phrase “the agents and devices are
aware of their environment, their location
and also their abilities and disabilities”
could be revised so as to clarify the
meaning of the word disabilities in this
sentence. Since it refers to agents (nonhuman as indicated by the sentence
context) and devices, disabilities could
be substituted with the word limitations
or another synonym.

In page 7 it is mentioned that designers
and developers are unaware of the
accessibility barriers that are generated
when introducing a new product to the
AmI market. As an AmI market has not
been established yet, authors could
reconsider this statement and discuss
the same problem under a more generic
perspective.
Furthermore, a list of abbreviations could
seem useful to readers, including terms such
as E&D population, the VIRSIM middleware,
etc.
Authors could also consider providing
references when referring to information
regarding statistical facts (e.g. the total
number of disabled persons in the EU) or
research efforts and results (e.g. the ISTAG
ambient intelligence space, or the WHO ICF
framework). References could also be
considered when making bold statements,
such as the statement that in the domain of
building design guidelines may be wrong (p.
5), or that virtual user models can guarantee
that the developments will be accessible for
a vast percentage of the disabled population
(p.7)
Finally, it would be useful for readers if
additional information was provided in the
last paragraph, in order to summarize how
the VERITAS project results will lead to the
next generation of research on accessibility
regarding AmI environments supporting the
seamless roaming of individuals and being
aware of their real-time accessibility needs.
Author’s response
The deliverable has been corrected accordingly
wherever necessary, based on the
aforementioned comments.
Deliverable
Layout/Spelling/Format
The deliverable is well written, however some
suggestions regarding some lexical issues and
mistypes are provided:

[p.6]: “either designing for the AmI or
not” could be rephrased as “either
designing for AmI environments /
applications or not”. The term “the AmI”
is also mentioned in p. 19 and could be
rephrased as well.

[p.11], Figure 4, VERITAS architecture:
The users with disabilities cloud is
labeled “Rear Users with Disabilities”
instead of “Real Users with Disabilities”

[p.12], last paragraph of section 3.1:
“while results are provide through EARL
based reporting” provided
Author’s response
The deliverable has been corrected accordingly