Difference between revisions of "Probation Board of Northern Ireland"
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | E-consultation is often criticized on the grounds that different groups of people do not have | + | ===Overview=== |
| − | equal access to electronic communications technologies. They may not be able to afford Internet | + | E-consultation is often criticized on the grounds that different groups of people do not have equal access to electronic communications technologies. They may not be able to afford Internet access at home, or have the skills or confidence to use Internet facilities in libraries, community centres or cybercafés. As a general criticism, it is a weak one. |
| − | access at home, or have the skills or confidence to use Internet facilities in libraries, community | + | |
| − | centres or cybercafés. As a general criticism, it is a weak one. The most common consultation | + | The most common consultation technique used in Ireland is to write a long document (40, 50 or even 200 pages) in an inaccessible language. This discriminates against those with little time, and those who do not have very high reading skills. |
| − | technique used in Ireland is to write a long document (40, 50 or even 200 pages) in language | + | |
| − | + | Few e-consultation techniques will be so exclusive. From the beginning, we have proposed e-consultation techniques as complementary to traditional approaches, rather than replacements. Each technique can reduce participation: but the groups excluded are different. However, no matter what you do to make electronic access simpler, there are still people who will find it difficult to participate. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | those with little time, and those who do not have very high reading | + | In this case example we discuss what can be done to improve accessibility and usability for some of these groups. |
| − | techniques will | ||
| − | techniques as complementary to traditional approaches, rather than replacements. Each | ||
| − | technique can reduce participation: but the groups excluded are different. However, no matter | ||
| − | what you do to make electronic access simpler, there are still people who will find it difficult to | ||
| − | participate. In this | ||
| − | for some of these groups. | ||
===[[Probation Board of Northern Ireland Consultation]]=== | ===[[Probation Board of Northern Ireland Consultation]]=== | ||
Revision as of 17:29, 13 January 2008
Contents
Overview
E-consultation is often criticized on the grounds that different groups of people do not have equal access to electronic communications technologies. They may not be able to afford Internet access at home, or have the skills or confidence to use Internet facilities in libraries, community centres or cybercafés. As a general criticism, it is a weak one.
The most common consultation technique used in Ireland is to write a long document (40, 50 or even 200 pages) in an inaccessible language. This discriminates against those with little time, and those who do not have very high reading skills.
Few e-consultation techniques will be so exclusive. From the beginning, we have proposed e-consultation techniques as complementary to traditional approaches, rather than replacements. Each technique can reduce participation: but the groups excluded are different. However, no matter what you do to make electronic access simpler, there are still people who will find it difficult to participate.
In this case example we discuss what can be done to improve accessibility and usability for some of these groups.
Probation Board of Northern Ireland Consultation
Designing an e-consultation interface for ex-offenders
Designing a usability test
Designing a usability test of an e-consultation interface for ex-offenders
