| Advisory committee 1—Centre-du-Québec |
Validate the design decision made during the first 2 co-design sessions on user needs. Address conflicting results. |
Plenary discussion. Face-to-face and videoconference participation. |
|
| Co-design 3—Saguenay |
Identification of user needs already met by other tools and identification of functionalities and content of existing tools related to those needs (what co-designers would keep, modify, or change). |
Comparison of existing eHealth information and communication technology tools (websites and apps). Small group workshop using a speed dating approach. |
|
| Co-design 4—Bas-Saint-Laurent |
Identification of functional or content requirements for the needs not met by existing tools. |
Plenary brainstorming and small group workshops. |
|
| Co-design 5—Gatineau, Outaouais |
Prioritization of functional requirements and design of information architecture. |
Paper prototyping in small group workshops. |
|
| Advisory committee 2—Centre-du-Québec |
Decision on conflicting requirements (no consensus reached). |
Plenary discussion. A total of 2 documents presenting the results and 3 different clickable PDF prototypes. Face-to-face and videoconference participation. |
|
| Co-design 6—Montréal-Laval |
Information design (content creation). |
Plenary presentation and small group brainstorming workshops. |
|
| Co-design 7—Trois-Rivières, Mauricie |
Information design (content creation). |
Plenary presentation and small group brainstorming workshops. |
|
| Co-design 8—Montérégie |
Information design (content creation) and interface design. |
Small group brainstorming workshops. Usability evaluation with a low-fidelity prototype (version 1). Discussion on interface design of the prototype. |
|
| Advisory committee 3—Centre-du-Québec |
Decisions on conflicting results. Obtaining feedback on the latest version of the prototype before website programming. |
Medium–high-fidelity prototype (version 2). Plenary discussion. Face-to-face and videoconference participation. |
|
