Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 24 Next »

General Information

Daily Stand-Up: Noon Eastern time, https://zoom.us/j/3935010675

Sprints:

  1. Nov. 30 - Dec. 18
  2. Dec. 21 - Jan. 14
  3. Jan. 15 - Feb. 4
  4. Feb. 5 - 25

Some Documents:

Questions

First Discovery Tool Construction Sprint Requirements

 from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p88RZghb4sDjn0aUi8bRMo5booy4rC-Di11t2pwQHBs/edit

  1.  Integration with the GPII Preferences Server
    1. Requirement All-2: KeyToken & Save
      "The tool(s) must, at the start of the process, create a KeyToken (e.g., NFC, USB, etc.)". Currently, the first discovery tool stores a local version of the user's preference set in their browser (using a cookie or other pluggable data store). At the end of the process, the preference set is saved to the GPII preferences server. The system can be restarted using the ctrl-option/alt-r keyboard command.
      1. Is the intention to to change this workflow, and if so how (and why)?
        1. Answer: YES, so that prefs can be auto-saved as the user progresses, so the process can be interrupted and then continued.
          1. This would seem to require a change to the OAuth2 authorization server.
      2. Will this work package include the development of a new module that will allow a user to  provision a key token (such as an NFC tag) automatically?
      3. If so, how will it be implemented? What types of key tokens will be supported (e.g. NFC, USB stick, YubiKey?)

Site Survey and Evaluation Plan

  1.  When will the functional tests (QA) take place? What is needed for this?
  2. Is the tester from the Technical Development Team also part of the "Tool Evaluation Team"? If not, will he be available to help with the functional testing?
  3. Who will perform this "construction" goal: "Where feasible, perform any ICT and Assistive Technology enhancements necessary at the chosen sites"?
  4. We should include an evaluation of the ease of integration in the overall usability testing. Need to consider usability test questions for integrators.
  5. How are we assessing whether or not a site meets the criteria for covering the necessary range of user needs? 
    1. We should add a survey question that prompts our prospective sites to tell us more about how their users use technology–what kinds of sites and content do they most often use?
    2. We should add a survey question that prompts prospective end-users (or staff/assistants at potential sites) to tell us more about users' needs (there is mention of a "pre-survey" to do initial research on the test population - but it's not clear at what stage this would happen - this should take place prior to selecting a site). What barriers do users most often face when using the technology at this site? What assistance do they ask for? 
    3. This would also inform, to some extent, the question of which site-specific preferences to include in the FD tool. However, we should err on the side of including "too many" preferences, to ensure that we don't leave any out that a user may want to try. 
  6. Are there other systems that the FD Tool will need to be integrated with (such as a learning management tool)? If so, should we ask questions about how they will be integrated and what kinds of workflows will be involved?

  • No labels