[accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN

Darrell, Lisa, etc.,

I think you are over-simplifying Will's article.  I think he and I (and
others too) are confident that we blinks can take in multiple simultaneous
data streams.  We are not, at this time, however, certain how to make it
work.

David Greenwood proves in "Shades of Doom" that
(Using an audio only interface), a blind person can navigate a fairly
complex user interface while listening to 32 simultaneous audio streams.
Furthermore, Greenwood's program can be used along with tactile maps that a
user can make on an embosser as they play the game and some players, those
who've really mastered the game (people whom I enjoy learning from but who
clearly have too much time on their hands) can control the movements with
their right hand on the keyboard while following the map with their left.  

Will is far more the expert in the neuromechanics of all of this and knows
which portions of the brain get fired at different times.  He also
understands the psychology of attention, an subject that he and I have
discussed a lot lately, far better than most people.  I think his CSUN
article (which I reran on my blog) actually says that we don't know how to
do a lot of things yet but those of us in research fields are looking toward
UI paradigms far beyond anything that the screen reader vendors would be
willing to even try.

I take more of an engineering approach to problems than Will who is far more
scientific than me.  Thus, I play Shades of Doom and wonder how I can apply
the same Direct X functions to deliver information useful at home, in a
workplace, at school, etc.  I've been hacking a lot in C# with Direct X and
a Logitech Force Feedback Flight Simulator joystick and making prototypes of
application access tools that use both 3D audio and have a 2D tactile
component as well.  I don't know if these will improve productivity or not
but I suspect they will.  And, if my tools do help improve productivity, I'm
sure Will will be able to explain why.

It's fun hacking again.  All of those years of management didn't seem to
have caused too much brain damage and I'm getting my chops back.  I didn't
even know C# on April 1 and have been able to make programs that move sounds
through 3D space and talk through SAPI.  It's a lot of fun.

Also, I agree that I'd put most any blind professional up against a sightie
with a similar skill set but, unfortunately, I believe that one of the
reasons blinks have such an enormous unemployment rate worldwide is that
many do not have the intellect or the intense drive to succeed that a blind
person needs in the current employment climate.  

Quoting Caddy Shack, "The world needs ditch diggers..." and, unfortunately,
being blind doesn't increase one's intelligence.  Those of us who do
succeed, do so by being twice as smart and hardworking as our sighted
colleagues.  Unfortunately, there is no real place for blind ditch diggers.
Blinks with a good education and skill set aren't those who struggle to find
jobs.  The blind equivalent of the guys who stock shelves at Wal-Mart or
work the register at Publix or flip burgers or drive UPS trucks or fix
potholes (all necessary for our society to continue) are pretty much left
out no matter how hard they work.

Almost 100% of the many JAWS features I invented during my six years at FS
are only useful for people who have jobs that require fairly intense
computer skills.  When I had Sean Murphy put in the cool scripts to make the
dialogue editor in VisualStudio talk and provide collision detection and
other really cool things, the users I had in mind were like the people on my
staff.  All of the really advanced stuff we did with IE and Office (which I
use extensively) are only useful if one has a job in which such tools are
required.  Excel, for instance, isn't a terribly easy program for sighted
people to learn to use effectively so the blinks who use it, even with all
of the cool augmentations I invented and Joe Stephen implemented, have it
harder and must also be able to have the skills to get the sort of job that
requires complex numeral or financial analysis to even have a requirement
for such software.

While at FS, I worked like a madman just to keep at a reasonably similar
pace with the sighted VPs.  I caused myself severe RSI problems which are
now under control but will never go away entirely.  Finally, as my staff
grew to about forty people (contractors included), on almost every
continent, I couldn't keep up any longer.  I reached the maximum capacity of
tasks that one pretty smart guy can perform using most of his waking hours
with a screen reader.  I also had the benefit of being able to invent and
have features that would make my tasks simpler, a luxury few blind people
will ever enjoy. 

Now, the whole notion of improving efficiency in the tools we use in our
daily lives is my primary focus in life.  I've committed to spending the
next decade or so working on this and getting a PhD somewhere along the
line.  Imagine, if we blinks keep working as hard as we do and the interface
paradigm can double or triple our productivity.

I'm rambling again.

Enjoy,
cdh


-----Original Message-----
From: accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Darrell Shandrow
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:33 PM
To: accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN


Hi Lisa,

Alas, I'm afraid Will's article is much gloomier than all that as both full 
page Braille and tactile graphics are still methods of serial information 
retrieval and processing.

Now, I am about to say something that some may find offensive but I just 
can't hold out any longer.  Despite our apparent shortcomings as blind 
people (being unable to do parallel info retrieval without sight, etc.) I'd 
put a competent blind worker up against a sighted one anyday.  Why?  Alas, 
as I live my life out in the real world, I find that most sighted people, 
for whatever reasons, choose not to use the brains and other abilities given

them by God.  So, in other words, while most people (whom happen to be 
sighted) apparently have all these abilities I lack as a blind person, I 
find I am often able to best them through competent performance of the task 
at hand...


Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
A+, CSSA, Network+!
Visit http://www.petitiononline.com/captcha and sign the Google Word 
Verification Accessibility Petition today!
Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by 
another person.
Blind Access Journal blog and podcast: http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lisa Yayla" <fnugg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN


> Hi Will,
>
> It was very interesting to read your letter. I really enjoyed it. And if I

> understand correctly  it seems also to strengthen the argument that 
> tactile graphics are important. That it  is important to have non-linear 
> information and for the blind this is done through tactile  graphics - 
> staggered information. Or how would you call tactile graphics? 
> Non-serialized information?
>
> And does this also say something about the importance of reading Braille 
> in page form?
>
> Regards,
> Lisa
>
>
> why learning Braille is important
>
>
>
> accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  Now that all the hype of CSUN is behind us, I thought it time to begin 
>> to
>> explore the more serious questions, the sort that are rarely touched on 
>> at
>> CSUN.  The first question I felt worthy of an attempt at an answer is,
>> whether using a screen reader can ever be as efficient as using sight? 
>> There's been plenty of speculation on the topic, usually resulting in the
>> answer that if <insert application vendor or platform vendor> waived 
>> their
>> magic wand using a screen reader would be as efficient as sight. 
>> However,
>> after spending several years considering this, and other human computer
>> interaction issues related to screen reader use, I take a different view.

>> My justification, whilst not exhaustive, is below.
>>  The first area where screen readers appear to fall short is in their
>> ability to communicate semantics.  Communication is all about
>> communicating thoughts, concepts, states, etc., and communication between
>> an interface for a piece of software and a user is no different in this
>> respect.  The main problem is that screen readers, through their use of
>> speech and Braille, both of which are serialised forms of communication,
>> use less physical variables to encode semantic content than sight does. 
>> There's roughly six variables that can be used to encode semantic 
>> content,
>> and these are:
>> * The position of something on the X, Y and Z axes
>> * The position of something in time
>> * The frequency of the physical wave, represented by things like color,
>> pitch, etc.
>> * The amplitude of the physical wave, or how strong it is
>> Using a computer with sight typically takes advantage of five of these
>> variables, whilst screen readers typically only use two.  So, it will 
>> take
>> longer to communicate the same semantic content using a screen reader 
>> than
>> it will sight.  To some extent this has supporting evidence from
>> psychological studies in which the listening and reading speeds of the
>> same person were compared.  These studies found that the same individual
>> could read something faster than they could listen to it.  There are
>> differences between individuals, which can account for why some screen
>> reader users can listen to things faster than some people can read 
>> things,
>> but within the same individual the evidence seems to indicate that
>> listening to things is slower.
>>  This serialisation of semantic content, brought about by the smaller
>> capacity of speech, also has implications for memory utilisation and
>> cognitive workload.  Studies involving Functional Magnetic Resonance
>> Imaging of the cortex have shown greater activity in the cortical regions
>> of the brain when listening to speech than when reading something.  Not
>> only is there activity on the left side of the cortex, in regions such as
>> Brocha's Area and Wernicke's Area, which is present for both reading and
>> listening, but listening to speech also produces activity in the right
>> side of the cortex, which is thought to be related to contextual priming.

>> In addition to the extra neurological activity associated with language
>> processing, there is also a higher demand on short term working memory. 
>> As speech is temporary, one moment it is there, the next it is not,
>> someone listening to speech has to remember more than someone reading
>> something.  It is not so easy to move back to a previously listened to
>> word or sentence than it is to move back to a previously read word or
>> sentence.  Navigating by listening often involves listening to words,
>> deciding whether they are the ones that are saught after, and if not,
>> navigating some more and repeating the process.
>>  Another consideration are the distinctions between programatic focus, 
>> the
>> mechanism used to shift attention with a screen reader, and visual
>> attention.  Screen readers utilise a mechanism of programatic focus to
>> shift the user's attention between user interface elements.  This means
>> that a user's attention is only focused on a single point at once,
>> something further compounded by a screen reader's use of serialised
>> output.  Whilst visual attention is usually focused on a single object, 
>> it
>> can shrink and grow, similar to a zoom lens, to encompass more or less of
>> an object.  This ability to shift attention from a word to a paragraph 
>> and
>> then onto the entire document provides a number of benefits for people
>> reading documents.  The most obvious benefit is the ability to not only
>> navigate by word or line, but to navigate around the document based on
>> more granular objects, such as paragraphs, tables, images, etc.  Whilst
>> similar functionality is available in some screen readers for a limited
>> set of scenarios, this functionality is not as flexible as the visual
>> mechanism used to shift attention.  The visual mechanism can group
>> granular objects together, such as a table proceeded by a diagram, and 
>> can
>> jump to those with very little requirement for processing.  In addition 
>> to
>> granular navigation, attention can also be shifted based on physical
>> features, such as color or location, which requires just the elements 
>> with
>> those physical features to be searched, as suggested by Treisman's 
>> Feature
>> Integration Theory.  As far as I am aware, no equivalent functionality to
>> this exists in a screen reader.  One key difference between programatic
>> and visual attention is that programatic attention can only be moved to
>> fixed points, whilst visual attention can be moved to any point or
>> object.  The final difference worth mentioning is that attention is not
>> just limited to a single point in the visual field.  Whilst there are
>> overt, indogenous, mechanisms to control visual attention through moving
>> the point of fixation, attention can also be focused in the periphery of
>> the visual field, through covert, indogenous, mechanisms.  This is a
>> useful point, as it means that sighted people can detect changes in the
>> state of something that occur away from their current point of fixation
>> without the cognitive work involved in moving the point of fixation
>>  So, I, for one, am beginning to form the opinion that screen readers are
>> not physically capable of delivering the same levels of efficiency as
>> sight can.  This isn't to say that blind people cannot gain the same 
>> level
>> of efficiency, just that it looks likely that they are unable to do this
>> using a screen reader.  What is more, is that this is not the fault of a
>> particular application or platform vendor, as is often claimed, but more 
>> a
>> problem with the core concept of a screen reader, a concept that requires
>> everything to be serialised.
>>  Will
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Hi,
>>  Now that all the hype of CSUN is behind us, I thought it time to begin 
>> to explore the more serious questions, the sort that are rarely touched 
>> on at CSUN.  The first question I felt worthy of an attempt at an answer 
>> is, whether using a screen reader can ever be as efficient as using 
>> sight?  There's been plenty of speculation on the topic, usually 
>> resulting in the answer that if <insert application vendor or platform 
>> vendor> waived their magic wand using a screen reader would be as 
>> efficient as sight.  However, after spending several years considering 
>> this, and other human computer interaction issues related to screen 
>> reader use, I take a different view.  My justification, whilst not 
>> exhaustive, is below.
>>  The first area where screen readers appear to fall short is in their 
>> ability to communicate semantics.  Communication is all about 
>> communicating thoughts, concepts, states, etc., and communication between

>> an interface for a piece of software and a user is no different in this 
>> respect.  The main problem is that screen readers, through their use of 
>> speech and Braille, both of which are serialised forms of communication, 
>> use less physical variables to encode semantic content than sight does. 
>> There's roughly six variables that can be used to encode semantic 
>> content, and these are:
>> * The position of something on the X, Y and Z axes
>> * The position of something in time
>> * The frequency of the physical wave, represented by things like color, 
>> pitch, etc.
>> * The amplitude of the physical wave, or how strong it is
>> Using a computer with sight typically takes advantage of five of these 
>> variables, whilst screen readers typically only use two.  So, it will 
>> take longer to communicate the same semantic content using a screen 
>> reader than it will sight.  To some extent this has supporting evidence 
>> from psychological studies in which the listening and reading speeds of 
>> the same person were compared.  These studies found that the same 
>> individual could read something faster than they could listen to it. 
>> There are differences between individuals, which can account for why some

>> screen reader users can listen to things faster than some people can read

>> things, but within the same individual the evidence seems to indicate 
>> that listening to things is slower.
>>  This serialisation of semantic content, brought about by the smaller 
>> capacity of speech, also has implications for memory utilisation and 
>> cognitive workload.  Studies involving Functional Magnetic Resonance 
>> Imaging of the cortex have shown greater activity in the cortical regions

>> of the brain when listening to speech than when reading something.  Not 
>> only is there activity on the left side of the cortex, in regions such as

>> Brocha's Area and Wernicke's Area, which is present for both reading and 
>> listening, but listening to speech also produces activity in the right 
>> side of the cortex, which is thought to be related to contextual priming.

>> In addition to the extra neurological activity associated with language 
>> processing, there is also a higher demand on short term working memory. 
>> As speech is temporary, one moment it is there, the next it is not, 
>> someone listening to speech has to remember more than someone reading 
>> something.  It is not so easy to move back to a previously listened to 
>> word or sentence than it is to move back to a previously read word or 
>> sentence.  Navigating by listening often involves listening to words, 
>> deciding whether they are the ones that are saught after, and if not, 
>> navigating some more and repeating the process.
>>  Another consideration are the distinctions between programatic focus, 
>> the mechanism used to shift attention with a screen reader, and visual 
>> attention.  Screen readers utilise a mechanism of programatic focus to 
>> shift the user's attention between user interface elements.  This means 
>> that a user's attention is only focused on a single point at once, 
>> something further compounded by a screen reader's use of serialised 
>> output.  Whilst visual attention is usually focused on a single object, 
>> it can shrink and grow, similar to a zoom lens, to encompass more or less

>> of an object.  This ability to shift attention from a word to a paragraph

>> and then onto the entire document provides a number of benefits for 
>> people reading documents.  The most obvious benefit is the ability to not

>> only navigate by word or line, but to navigate around the document based 
>> on more granular objects, such as paragraphs, tables, images, etc. 
>> Whilst similar functionality is available in some screen readers for a 
>> limited set of scenarios, this functionality is not as flexible as the 
>> visual mechanism used to shift attention.  The visual mechanism can group

>> granular objects together, such as a table proceeded by a diagram, and 
>> can jump to those with very little requirement for processing.  In 
>> addition to granular navigation, attention can also be shifted based on 
>> physical features, such as color or location, which requires just the 
>> elements with those physical features to be searched, as suggested by 
>> Treisman's Feature Integration Theory.  As far as I am aware, no 
>> equivalent functionality to this exists in a screen reader.  One key 
>> difference between programatic and visual attention is that programatic 
>> attention can only be moved to fixed points, whilst visual attention can 
>> be moved to any point or object.  The final difference worth mentioning 
>> is that attention is not just limited to a single point in the visual 
>> field.  Whilst there are overt, indogenous, mechanisms to control visual 
>> attention through moving the point of fixation, attention can also be 
>> focused in the periphery of the visual field, through covert, indogenous,

>> mechanisms.  This is a useful point, as it means that sighted people can 
>> detect changes in the state of something that occur away from their 
>> current point of fixation without the cognitive work involved in moving 
>> the point of fixation
>>  So, I, for one, am beginning to form the opinion that screen readers are

>> not physically capable of delivering the same levels of efficiency as 
>> sight can.  This isn't to say that blind people cannot gain the same 
>> level of efficiency, just that it looks likely that they are unable to do

>> this using a screen reader.  What is more, is that this is not the fault 
>> of a particular application or platform vendor, as is often claimed, but 
>> more a problem with the core concept of a screen reader, a concept that 
>> requires everything to be serialised.
>>  Will
>
>
>

Other related posts: