RE: Sonified Debugger vs. Screenreader Question

  • From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:00:28 -0500

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

Other related posts: