kauevestena
(Kauê De Moraes Vestena)
5
Thank you for the quick answer!
Very interesting, can you share the report from this study? I am also a researcher on acessibility mapping, and i’m very interested.
But I want to disagree with the binary option. I would say that a numerical grade for brokeness can be imprecise (linked with “standart deviation”) rather than innacurate (far from the actual value), no one may put 100% on a really broken feature, but may put any value ranging from say 10% to 30%, maybe 40%. So one may discretize afterwards, even in a binary way.
I have a lot to learn in the field of acessibility and anti-capacitism, but there are a huge variety of disabilities, people in wheelchair can have many levels of mobility restrictions, so say just “no” may put off many people that actually could pass trough that kerb. Yes, that broken kerb needs to be repaired, but unfortunately the real world is far worse, so we may need to do the best we can with what we have, of course, never forgetting the fight for better days.