Re: Sonified Debugger vs. Screenreader Question

Nope wasn't meant as that at all. It was trying to show the frustrations that blind people feel because of the misinterpretations of them. How I show is to try to show by example. All of the papers and theories are not worth much if they don't first understand the minds of the people they are studying. I am certain he misunderstood the intent of the statement much as you did and that was my point. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Sonified Debugger vs. Screenreader Question



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
http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind




__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind


__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind




__________
View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts: