I really can't help but bristle at the tone of this email. Someone is trying to do some good ... how about not being a complete jerk about it? Sorry if I interpretted your email the wrong way, but this is getting ridiculous. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Greer Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:43 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Sonified Debugger vs. Screenreader Question sounds like another theory to try to prove that blind people also have a brain and can think just like their sighted counterparts can. Show the monkey a rotten banana and a fresh banana and see if he is smart enough to grab the fresh one and not the rotten one. Well I personally don't have to see to be able to tell that something is rotten. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Pearson" <will@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Sonified Debugger vs. Screenreader Question > Hi, > > Andy wrote: > "I think GOMS estimates are built on sighted folks as well, so I have > no idea how they apply to the blind community." > > When I was considering using KLM-GOMS a few years ago my thoughts were > to use the operations that were applicable to blind users and to > generate a new set of operations and timings for operations that only > blind people perform. KLM-GOMS is based largely around physical tasks, > such as pressing a key, and I can't see this varying a lot between > blind and sighted computer users. The only reason why it might change > is as a result of differences in typing mode, e.g. touch typing vs > hunt and peck, but these differences can be found between sighted users as well. > > I think GOMS is a pretty weak analysis technique. It has two > significant failings. Firstly, it views users as invarient and we all > know that no two people are not exactly alike. The second failing of > GOMS, and its most significant in my view, is that the technique only > gives superficial treatment to cognitive operations. Cognitive > operations typically take up more time and effort than physical tasks, > something that is especially true for novice users, and only providing > for a simplistic model of these, as GOMS does, doesn't really accurately model a system in my view. > > Will __________ > 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 __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind