RE: Sonified Debugger vs. Screenreader Question
- From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:27:30 -0500
I haven't seen a KLM goms analysis with focus on blind users, but I haven't
looked either, so that might be interesting.
As for the rest of it .. I am looking forward to seeing your results.
Take care,
Sina
-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andreas Stefik
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:32 AM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Sonified Debugger vs. Screenreader Question
Sina asks:
Are you going to be doing a goms analysis
Andreas says:
Not exactly. I've built a custom compiler, debugger, etc, that integrates
speech based audio into the very heart of the compiler itself. The key
advantage, as you might imagine, is that the speech audio can give hordes of
information that visual studio can never come close to duplicating, as even
the add-in architecture can't connect super deeply into the compiler (for
technical reasons with the way visual studio's compiler/debugger
architecture works).
So, while GOMS analysis is largely, if I recall, keystroke level
empirically derived analysis about the time it would take to complete tasks,
our analysis is more about how effective the audio is for helping you
program. I think GOMS estimates are built on sighted folks as well, so I
have no idea how they apply to the blind community.
(With braille keyboards typically, correct?) Have you seen a paper on this
Sina?
In other words, we are not doing a GOMS analysis of non-sighted programmer
activities, but someone publishing this would be a super valuable research
project. It could be a great contribution to the literature as well, as
sighted folks like me have near zero data on the keystrokes non-sighted
programmers actually use in practice, let alone how they compare to the
traditional GOMS techniques for analyzing keystrokes.
Sina said:
At first, when you mentioned video taping it, I immediately thought of a
cognitive JogThrough as introduced by Rowlands, D.E. and Rhodes, D.G.
Andreas said:
Oh, yes, that's definitely one way to do it. The video tapes in our case are
mostly so we can go back and figure out what, inevitably, went wrong, AKA
they are more qualitative analysis than anything super formal. My phd
advisor though has done some of that insanely time consuming analysis
before. Several of my friends/colleagues have participated on those kind
studies and man, you aren't kidding, it's like several months of work for a
single study, pretty nuts. For whatever reason though, I've always gotten
lucky and not had to do it.
They always have me writing some piece of a compiler instead.
We have worked on designing measures of how well people can comprehend audio
for programming, but those measures are also insanely time consuming as
well. No free lunch I guess. Our next study should be pretty
straightforward, though, no super fancy analysis. I think we're just going
to measure things like "time to complete task" and stuff like that. Easy.
Hope that answers your questions!
Andreas
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
Other related posts: