KevinCommentByDenver

Presenter: Kevin

Reviewer: Denver

1.Did the presentation clearly describe the aims of the research—empirical, conceptual, methodological and practical? How cyberspace is constructed for the disabled. Policy, educational priorities, activists, recommendations for changes. 2.Did the presentation provide a overview of what we already know about the research subject, and then explain how the proposed research will create new knowledge? Yes. A introduction of the problems with the “construction of disability”. 3.Did the presentation provide a robust sense of how the research will be carried out, and of the type of data that will be collected? Policies, interviews with a wide range of people. 4.Did the research plan presented seem credible and feasible? Yes. Good understanding an strong background in web development. 5.Did the presentation provide a tangible sense of the book and other outcomes of the research? Yes. PhD dissertation, book, presentations. 6.Did the presentation persuade you that the proposed research is important, in this historical moment in particular? Yes. Disabled, an underserved community in cyberspace. A bunch of problems concerning the disable people's usage of cyberspace. Explosion of web technologies, an urgent problem. 7.Was the speaking style clear, engaging and well timed? He speaks clearly. A very creative visualization of the issue. 8.Further comments and questions.