frequency of communication format used in 20 case studies.xlsx

The twenty case studies from the field of Assistive Technology (AT) product design were identified from available sources, including journal articles and textbooks. <br>Ten were from my past experiences, spanning a fifteen year period, with ten from other authors over a matching period. Studies from other authors were chosen to match the level of focus and detail at which my ten case studies were described, i.e. method only; combined methods; and, methodology or approach. <br>The twenty case studies were reviewed by two operators, using the same protocol, to minimise bias. The list of communication formats were given to both operators, along with a short description of each. The operators used the descriptions to identify formats used in each study. I was one of the operators, with the other an administrator with a good working knowledge of design methods. Using an operator not fully immersed in design process was to ensure the descriptions were reviewed on the content alone; and, to avoid myself, as an experience designer, unintentionally ‘filling in’ any gaps using past experience of the formats and or process.<br>The reviews were compared to identify any differences or other anomalies between each reviewer’s interpretations of each case study. If differences were found, they were to be discussed and highlighted. Where one operator had identified a format and not the other, the reasoning for identification was to be discussed and the element included or excluded. Due to constraints of time and resource consideration was not given to any excluded identified communication formats being novel or a new category being needed. The externalisation of each operator’s reasons for their choice was also to help resolve differences of interpretation.<br>The review of the 20 articles and book chapters by two operators resulted in a number of differences in representation. These were quickly resolved through jointly reviewing the material again with the operator who had indicated there was evidence of a particular format showing the other its location within the text. Where this could not be found, the positive indicator was removed in the agreed review column, shown in Table 2. <br>The completed table provides a hierarchy of frequently applied communication formats within the 20 publications. The communication formats were grouped under the generic titles of dialogue, role play, sketch/functional model, presentation board/visualisation and sketch drawing. The communication formats and group titles were matched with mechanisms of sensory perception. The titles given were termed for ease of understanding by a layperson, rather than precise technical, for academic or practitioner use. They were: visual, sound, taste, smell, temperature, vibration, haptic/tactile and body movement.<br>

本研究从期刊论文、教科书等公开数据源中，筛选得到辅助技术（Assistive Technology，AT）产品设计领域的20项案例研究。其中10项源自笔者15年从业历程中的过往实践，剩余10项来自同期其他研究者的公开成果。所选其他作者的研究均与笔者的10项案例研究在聚焦程度与细节维度上保持匹配，即仅涉及方法、组合方法，或方法论/研究路径三类。
为最大限度降低偏倚风险，本研究由两名评审员采用统一评审方案，对20项案例研究开展系统性评审。研究人员向两名评审员提供了沟通形式清单及每项形式的简短说明，评审员据此识别各项案例研究中所采用的沟通形式。本次评审由笔者与另一名评审员共同完成，后者为一名熟悉设计方法的行政人员。选择未深度参与设计流程的评审员，旨在确保评审仅基于文本内容开展，避免作为资深设计师的笔者，因过往对沟通形式及设计流程的认知，无意识地填补文本中的空白。
为识别两名评审员对各项案例研究的解读差异或异常点，需对评审结果进行比对。若发现分歧，需共同讨论并标注。当一名评审员识别出某一沟通形式而另一名未识别时，需就识别依据展开讨论，进而决定该形式是否纳入最终结果。受时间与资源限制，本次研究未针对被排除的沟通形式是否属于新兴类型、或是否需要新增类别展开考量。阐明每位评审员的选择依据，亦可助力消解解读分歧。
两名评审员对20篇期刊论文及图书章节的评审结果，存在若干表征层面的差异。此类分歧可通过联合复现文本材料快速解决：由标注存在特定沟通形式的评审员，向另一名评审员指明该形式在文本中的具体位置。若无法定位相关内容，则在双方约定的评审栏中移除该正向标注，具体形式详见表2。
最终形成的表格梳理了20项出版物中高频使用的沟通形式层级体系。本次研究将沟通形式划分为五大通用类别：对话、角色扮演、草图/功能模型、展示板/可视化成果，以及手绘草图。沟通形式及其类别名称，均与感官感知机制相对应。为便于非专业人士理解，本次研究采用通俗化命名，而非面向学术或行业从业者的精准技术术语。具体类别包括：视觉、听觉、味觉、嗅觉、温度感知、振动、触觉/触感，以及肢体运动。