That's why there are AI systems that learn by doing. You don't ask anything, just monitor and see what repetitious behavior falls out.
This may sound insensitive, but I rather doubt many blind users configure these things much at all.
I have a very good friend who is almost completely blind ... he perceives only light and dark ... and I see where he adapts the surroundings and where he adapts *to* the surroundings.
My brother-in-law teaches at a school for the disabled. Some of his students are blind, some are deaf and most have other disabilities as well. I have seen much the same behaviors there ... they learn to deal with things as they are introduced to them and don't mess around too much.
Despite that, they accomplish a great deal. Might they accomplish more if their surroundings were more individually friendly? Probably. OTOH, if they walk into something because it was "customized" for someone else, they might get hurt. And if they sit down to a computer that is customized for someone else, they might be unable to do anything at all. So it's a trade-off: standardize the environment and everyone can do something. Customize it and perhaps nobody can do anything.
And my question to that is "who the hell needs that?" For 250 years [the "refrigerator" was invented in 1755], the refrigerator was a dumb box and it worked just fine.
Despite what some people think, every goddamn thing does not need a computer brain, and for most people the majority of things need very little in the way of customization.
I don't recite a piece of code to anyone - they look at it themselves. Likewise no one recites code to me - I look at it myself.
I used to know a vision impaired programmer who used a braille reader and keyboard. I never worked directly with him, but he worked very much like I did (and do): when he collaborated with other people they would pass code back and forth with markup and comment.
I doubt there are even a handful of people who could successfully write a non-trivial program via voice reader: it is too much context to hold onto.
It is said that Stephen Hawking could hold and manipulate all the equations in his head. But he is a genius - most people are not.
Show me a language with no (equivalent of) whitespace.
It's a fallacy to think that you somehow are reducing complexity by renaming what you consider to be "cryptic" symbols. It doesn't matter whether the symbol is represented by the character '=>*' or the word 'arrow-star' ... the person using it still has to understand what it means.
And to repeat myself - why are you reciting it over the phone? Send a goddamn fax, or an email, or a tweet, or a text message and let them "read" it (for some definition of "read") for themselves.
That's one way to look at it. The other way is there are a whole lot of people who are charitably called "programmers" and who would be doing the world a favor if they did something else.
This isn't going anywhere. We should just agree to disagree. George
The reality is that very few users of any sort configure these things. I'd guess that something like 95% of households in developed countries have a firewall/router device. And I would guess that 90% of these have never configured or customised anything on them beyond the bare minimum of picking a wireless SSID and password by following the "getting started" instructions. And well more than half of /those/ will have been set up by a friend, other family member, or the neighbour's teenager.
The great majority of people don't need "customisation" - they need things to work out of the box. And for the little that needs done, such as setting the time on the VCR, why would you need a special interface for blind people or other disabled users? They can do what most other people do - ask someone for help.
(This is not being callous - we all have things we can do ourselves, and things we need help for. I can configure firewalls, but if something goes wrong with the car I ask my car-enthusiast neighbour or take it to the mechanic.)
(I've snipped the rest of your post, because I only wanted to add this one comment. But it was a very interesting and informative post - I'm glad Usenet has no "like" or "+1" button, but if it did, it would have got one from me.)
So, release a product that assumes *nothing* and let EVERYONE deal with the learning issue? (i.e., why tailor a "default release" to one group over another? Do you canvas the entire market and figure out what the "best" group to target is *likely* to be? What if they don't end up being the *actual* customers?)
Because they *can't*. A "display reader" (i.e., decode N-digit 7-segment displays) has been high on the wish-list of many blind/VI folks for many years. What's that digital clock say? How much time is remaining on the count-down timer on the microwave oven? (when will my biscotti be ready to come out of the oven?)
I'm sure he doesn't let others arrange *his* surroundings and then learns what they are! Anything he has control over he undoubtedly opts to arrange himself.
Again, because they are *forced* to do so! Look at how long it has taken to get *money* that can be resolved without visual cues: all paper money here is the same size, same basic color. And that's something that's essential to "living"!
You will also see that people address disabilities differently depending on when they encounter them in their life. E.g., blind from birth is different that losing vision to diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, etc. Folks who lose their vision later in life tend to have no real recourse: too late to learn braille (and neuropathy from e.g., diabetes, can make it too difficult to gain the tactile sensitivity to resolve braille) to any effective degree.
If you lost your vision *today*, would you suddenly be incompetent as a programmer? Could you not "visualize" code fragments in enough detail to compose a working script *if* you could see what you were "writing"?
People losing their (central) vision later in life end up "dealing with" the loss -- by simply realizing it *is* a loss; gone along with the things that relied upon it (reading, driving, setting the household thermostat, etc.)
So, all computers should be standardized? Anything that *could* be customized *shouldn't* -- because it wouldn't be a uniform interface for *all*? Perhaps the seats in cars should all have their adjustment disabled? Or, at least forced to be located in a particular location so folks can access them "universally"? Perhaps automatically returning to some "default" position when they sense the occupant getting off?
That's just silly. What you want is to tailor customizations to individuals. E.g., *my* house should be set up for *my* needs; not those of some "nominal occupant". When we have house guests, we don't expect them to *know* where the clean linens are located. Or, where the trash basket in the *kitchen* is located (is it behind *this* cabinet? Or, *that* one? Or, perhaps somewhere else entirely??) or the clean glassware/dinnerware, etc.
Yet, no one has ever died of thirst, here, for want of a drinking glass. Or, come wandering out of the shower au naturel because they couldn't find fresh towels.
My solution is to tie the customizations *to* the individual. So when *I* interact with it, it behaves as *I* expect it to behave. Yet, when another person standing beside me interacts, it reacts *differently* -- as
*they* expect.
Then why aren't we all waiting for routine deliveries of *ice* (for our "ice boxes")? Refrigerators have, for years, allowed the temperature of the freezer and refrigeration compartments to be independently set (within reason). I've owned refrigerators that allowed the butter compartment to have yet another setting! Newer refrigerators add a third compartment that can be used as additional freezer space, refrigerator space or something between the two extremes. (i.e., an extra evaporator is added along with another set of controls for it)
The *coming* refrigerators (as well as other appliances) go beyond this and actually try to track *consumption*: "You're out of milk!" How much of this is toy vs. utility? How much is carrying a phone in your pocket a "toy" vs. "utility"?
While I don't need an appliance to prepare my weekly shopping list, it sure would be nice if, on an unexpected stop at the grocery store, I could check to see if I had any broccoli on hand so I could exploit the unannounced sale on flank steak (sure don't want to buy *more* broccoli if I don't need it! OTOH, would be chagrined to return home and discover I had none and now need to make another trip out if I want to prepare "beef with broccoli")
Should I, instead, discipline myself to ALWAYS carry a list of my "foodstuffs inventory" on hand just in case the need arises? Or, shrug it off and just resolve myself to making another (avoidable) trip back to the store?
Sure! We can settle on a standard layout for furnishings in our homes, a standard placement of items in kitchen cupboards/drawers, a standard set of TV channels on all sets, ditto for radio stations, etc. Imagine how much easier it would be to know you just had to hit "next station" 7 times to get to the station you *prefered* -- instead of having a "favorite" -- REGARDLESS OF WHOSE HOME YOU WERE IN!
Homes should all be heated to 70F and cooled to 80F. These temperatures should be in place over the period M-F7A-10P and allowed to drift lower/higher by no more than 5 degrees during the "sleep hours". Everyone should work 9A-5P lest they find themselves working when the HVAC assumes they are asleep.
We should all listen to the same music and in the same sequence. Heck, maybe at the same *times* (so you would know what time to tune in when you want to hear a particular song).
All phones should be black. No need for wallpaper on computer screens. All text should be displayed in courier -- and the same size! Newspapers (electronic or otherwise) should all be read in a fixed sequence. All articles should be read in their entirety (no need for bookmarks).
Then you're dealing with sighted people who are "connected" to your source code in some way. You;ve never had to dictate a code fragment to someone on a field service call across the country.
Did you ever *look* at his "display"? Ever ask him what he would change *if* he could change it? I.e., if he wasn't "forced" to "adapt to it"?
A standard braille line is 40 cells. For *text*, this can be comparable to a written line of text -- Grade 2 braille supports lots of contractions that economize on space (along with reading and writing effort). Grade 1 braille would mean you have LESS THAN 40 "(text) characters" available as a character maps to one (or two) cells.
A '[' requires 2 cells to represent. Amusingly, the *same* 2 cells are used to represent ']'. The same applies for '(' and ')'! OTOH, open and close single quotes have different representations. As is the case for open/close *double* quotes. Curiously, single quotes take
2 cells while double quotes take *one*. And "ditto" marks differ from each of the above (though require 2 cells). Apostrophe and "accent" differ from all of the above.
Decimal point is not the same as "period". Numbers are introduced with a special "number follows" sign (which eats a cell). *Individual* uppercase letters are preceded with an "uppercase" sign (another cell). Strings of uppercase letters are introduced with a different sign (two cells). So, mixed case identifiers get long, fast. Expressions with parenthesized subexpressions and array references?
There's no '_' representation.
And, forget about "indent level"! Waste a cell on each layer of indent?? (actually, the rule is to indent *two* cells per level) :<
"Math braille", "Computer braille", "Grade 2 braille", etc.
Then, we can address 8-dot cells -- which use a different set of rules for encodings (and, which might not be available on all braille displays -- unless designed with that in mind!).
The following: /* This is one comment */ struct alist *xp, *findit(); EACH fill an entire braille "line" (ignoring the indent). Most braille displays are *one* line!
This:
formatting link
takes *6* lines to represent! (in "print", a braille "page" consists of 25, 40-cell lines on SINGLE SIDED -- think about it -- 11x11.5 paper)
The point of all this "silly detail" is to show you the consequences of "adapting to" an existing "system" that was conceived without its impact on this form of representation. Creating a scripting language with the same ARBITRARY ignorance of these issues leads to results that are just as clumsy!
You may want to *candidly* inquire of your blind programmer friend just what its like dealing with the limitations of his output device. And, ask him to think about what he *wished* he could impose on the writers of any code that he's had to read/modify over the years. If he thinks about it AS IF he really *had* that capability, you'll be surprised at what issues come up!
[I did this with blind, deaf, physically handicapped, etc. users many years ago. The biggest problem with those interviews was getting folks to shed the "I have to adapt" mentality that has been bred into them -- because they *have* no choice! Ask them what things would be like if *they* could write the "rules" and you end up with an entirely different set of criteria! E.g., one that surprised me from a blind user was wanting products that don't "look blind"... i.e., look like they were assembled from off-the-shelf components -- a consequence of low production volumes and avoidance of high tooling costs -- in someone's GARAGE! "Make it look sexxy!" "Make it easy to clean (because it's going to be in my hands a lot and get dirty/greasy from all that handling... AND, I am unlikely to SEE just how 'disgusting' it LOOKS -- to sighted folks around me!"]
You can't be serious? *You* couldn't write one of the scripts that I've described, here? I imagine it would take you just a few minutes... even dealing with the "audio navigation" issues!
Actually, what you learn to value most (with blindness) is MEMORY! You can't "verify" something "on inspection" so have to REMEMBER how you left it. And, discipline yourself to leave it the same way each time (to reduce the number of things that you have to remember).
"Which is the blue shirt that goes best with those black slacks? And, where the hell *are* those slacks??"
This makes blindness late in life doubly troublesome -- memory tends to get worse with age; esp STM. (i.e., where you kept the scissors when you were a CHILD doesn't help you remember where you left them YESTERDAY!)
I meant the *significance* of whitespace. So, " " means something notably different than "\t\t" or "\t ". If someone was reading
*this* to you, would you be aware of the locations of the line breaks? The dual spaces (or not!) after each "full stop"? The paragraph breaks?
Of course you can reduce complexity! Information gets encoded in data in a variety of ways.
For example, a language that implicitly terminates each statement/line at the '\n' doesn't ALSO need an explicit line termination (e.g., ';'). A language that doesn't allow expressions like: A = B = C = D = 4 + 3 means the "reader" need not be prepared for a second (third, fourth, etc.) '=' after encountering the first.
A language that encodes data type in the (required) identifier itself omits the need for explicit type declarations (e.g., FORTRAN i,j,k).
The statement: A := 3; "reads" with a lot more complexity than: A gets 3 yet encodes the same information.
I bump into you in the store. You ask how *you* could configure *your* phone answering system to behave *like* mine. I can recite the pseudo-code I described (upstream) and, chances are, it will "make sense" to you (if you've written any code in that language). No need for me to write it down. No risk that you'll forget that I said "colon equals" instead of "equals" in some places. For an effective language, you can "visualize" the algorithm: "Yeah, that makes sense! Lookup the caller's phone number in a database (I'll sort out how to build that database as a separate project). Determine the 'contact category' for the caller. Then, conditionally execute one of several different types of actions based on that information. Maybe I'll use an if-tree... or, perhaps a 'case' (switch) statement."
If the language is cluttered with lots of "magic" that the user has to remember, then there is far less chance of him getting it right "quickly".
No argument, there! But, that's not what's happening. You don't see employers dismissing lots of candidates and raising payscales to compete for The Good Ones. Rather, you see them trying to make use of The NotGood Ones to keep their costs low, reliance on "key" staff minimized, etc.
I started this project with a bottom-feeding hardware approach: make the hardware *dirt* cheap. Compensate with cleverer software -- within the capabilities of that cheap hardware.
But, the reality of the cost differential between "dirt cheap" and "cheap" made that criterion silly. With "cheap" I can make the software a lot more capable, extensible and robust. I.e., more suited to letting others extend it without breaking everything in the process. (design of OS, complexity of comms, features in scripting language, etc.)
Agreed. My goal is to show that systems *can* be accessible in more than just superficial ways. *And*, to document the costs of that accessibility in the design process! (it's not "free" as those adherents would like to believe)
Or, should that be "disagreed"? :>
Time for C's biscotti -- else The Big Frown come morning! :-/
That's not the same thing as saying that there is no *need* for them to be configured/customized.
That speaks to a lack of education on the part of the user. And, a poor design from the manufacturer that *necessitates* such education; coupled with the realization that sxposing the user to all that complexity would PROBABLY intimidate the user (and cost the manufacturer the "sale")
No, they *want* things to work "out of the box". But, they want them to work the way *they* want them to work! E.g., the TV should receive the channels *I* want to watch (and not be cluttered up with all those extra channels in which I have no interest).
But, they don't want to *pay* (much) for this -- thinking it *should* be "simple". When it (frequently) turns out that this is not the case (often because the interface was poorly designed), they either live with the "inconvenience" (and some level of "disappointment") *or* return the product and search for something more suitable (or "none") -- see below.
[My first TV had a mute feature -- but one that wasn't "independent"; any other operation would unmute the audio -- so, you couldn't hit mute and browse channels. My only remedy would have been to replace the set with one that behaved as better suited *my* intended usage]
(sigh) In reality, they just "do without". Do *you* LIKE asking people for help? Esp if it draws attention to your "inability/disability"? IME, people (handicapped or otherwise) are more prone to hide their ignorance/inabilities than expose them. How often do folks NOT ask
*their* M.D. for clarification of those "big words" he's using to describe
*their* medical condition?? Or, the side-effects/consequences of the treatment regimen being indicated? Or, alternatives?? Do they not care?
"Ha! You mean you couldn't figure out how to change the wallpaper on your monitor?"
[I have a neighbor whose monitor is set to a much lower resolution than it is capable -- because he didn't KNOW that there was even an adjustment available and didn't think to ask: "Gee, I've got this huge monitor but there's never enough 'room' on the screen for everything!"]
Estimates (self-reported by folks in the consumer electronics industry) suggest that a *huge* portion of product returns boil down to "I can't figure out how to make this thing do what I *think* it should do". People will fidget with a device for 15 or 20 minutes and then throw up their hands in disgust: "Let's just get our money back..."
[Think about that. It approaches the cost of most GENUINE *warranty* costs!]
People *know* not to use the same password in more than one place; not to pick an "easy to guess" password; not to write it down anywhere; etc. And, often, the things that are "at risk" in these cases are their own *personal* property, information, etc. Yet, *setting* (or changing!) a password has got to be one of the easiest things (conceptually) to do!
So, why don't people do it? Would they rather the password be picked
*for* them ahead of time? Or, STANDARDIZED?? (Hey, how about "admin" or "password"?)
OK, maybe they're just SUPER LAZY and can't bother to take the time to figure out how to change their password. Yet, when FORCED to change it ("password expired") -- and thus saved the effort of having to figure out HOW to do this -- they simply type in the SAME PASSWORD, again. Despite all the education AND MECHANISM telling them not to do this!
Do you live with whatever station presets were set on the radio when you purchased the vehicle? Do you keep the seats in the same position as the previous driver? Surely, neither of these things poses an insurmountable issue that would prevent you from using the vehicle!
Why do people insist on picking a paint/interior color for a vehicle? Or a cell phone *case*? Or, "wallpaper" for their monitor? (what's wrong with "root weave"?) Or, big icons vs. small? (Do you really think all the mechanism to support these changes/customizations was "invested" without reason?)
People always want to tailor things to THEIR needs. The problem is making sure it is easy for them to do so. E.g., some DTP tools present a "fonts (typefaces)" menu as just a list of "font names". Others present the list as *samples* of each of those fonts! Both approaches allow the user to adjust the "font" to their desires ("perceived needs"). But, the first makes the task considerably more difficult (esp for a casual/infrequent user!) than the second.
Devices (in this case, languages) have to be intuitive and not needlessly complicated (why do I need a semicolon here but not there?). Doing simple things should be simple.
At the same time, you don't want to cripple folks who are interested and motivated in doing more.
True, but it means that you don't need to make it easy to configure them. And you don't need to go out of your way to make it possible to configure for those that can't do it the "normal" way (such as for blind people) - that just makes everything more costly and more difficult for everyone else.
If you are making something where it is /realistic/ to expect blind people to want to configure the system, then by all means make a version that can be configured by voice or Braille. But only where it makes sense.
No, it shows quite clearly that the out-of-the-box defaults are fine for most people, except for setting their SSID name and password.
Everything else is "advanced", for people who have extra requirements.
And most people are fairly happy with the "out of the box" experience - or they fiddle with a few basic settings (like channel selection).
Either you do without if it doesn't matter, or you ask for help when it /does/ matter. Or someone else will just fix things when they are there anyway. If a person is blind or disabled, and doesn't have able-bodied visitors who are happy to sort out these small issues, then they have vastly bigger problems than the time on their VCR!
You can argue all you want about how the world /should/ be, or how it is a terrible thing that people don't configure their devices. But in the real world, for the most part, people don't do much setup or configuration - they do as little as they can get away with. That applies to most "normal", able-bodied people - and doubly so for the elderly, blind, disabled, etc. Thus any time or effort spent on making it easier is mostly wasted, because the fiddlers and geeks will make changes no matter how difficult it is, and the normal people will leave it on default settings no matter how easy it is.
Then why don't I do it the *easiest* way for me? Make everything "closed" and sell "configuration services"?
How does the choice of how you represent "assignment", conditionals, etc. in a scripting language make it more difficult for everyone else? Do you
*care* if I say: Y = 3 instead of: Y := 3; or: Y If you are making something where it is /realistic/ to expect blind people to
Only trivial things don't require configuration.
How would you set up an irrigation system if you wanted it to be "zero configuration"? Put a moisture sensor at each plant? Sell those moisture sensors in different "flavors": use a cactus sensor for cacti because they have different water needs than embodied in the "tomato plant sensor"? (Isn't that just moving "configuration" to "time of purchase"?)
You can make a set-back thermostat "learn" your *weekly* (not daily!) sleep/wake, home/away schedule. But, how do you tell (configure) it how to handle holidays? Days when you are home sick/vacation? Or, do you just accept the INconvenience that comes from it's "smarts" at those times? (Hmmm... it thinks I am at work so it has turned off the hot water heater. I guess I won't be showering as soon as I expected!)
You can design a telephone answering system to automatically discard/inhibit incoming calls from folks whose previous calls you have (apparently) ignored. But, how do you then tell it to "forget" that fact?
Yet they can't seem to *do* those "simple" things? Why not design the product so it doesn't work *until* you have set these parameters? (Ah, but then you are forcing people to "do something").
Companies offer "concierge" services for items that they consider too costly to risk "getting back" (because the user couldn't figure out how to set it up as expected). These companies are effectively saying "the product was designed poorly -- but we want to ensure we can make a sale *stick*".
C'mon, how hard is it to set the time on a VCR? Or, in your car? Is it really *that* much harder to plug some video cables into a TV and your cable box? Is anything beyond the power cord considered too difficult??
Products are designed with too much *apparent* complexity. So, it intimidates users before they even make their initial attempt. Complexity should expose itself only to intentional "probes"; you shouldn't be aware of it unless (and until) you *need* to be exposed to it.
E.g., the irrigation controller in my system is "naively" configured like most COTS controllers: Ni minutes at time Ti on days Di for zone Zi. As such, if you already own a COTS controller, the "setup" is simply a matter of noting the times/days associated with each zone on your current controller and transcribing those values to mine. Doing this gives you *no* (added, immediate) benefit. But, it sets the "price/complexity of admission" very low.
In the future, I'll be able to tell you when one of your valves is defective (stuck, open, shorted) -- which your current COTS controller can't (?) do.
If you opt to also include a weather station in your deployment, then I can *save* you money (water) by noting when it's rained (or raining) and inhibiting/postponing the watering cycle. Now, Di and Ti may have changed (all the Monday events have now moved to Tuesday because of rain on Sunday, etc.). So, you can't expect the user model to remain identical to that of the (dumb) COTS controller. Yet, it's relatively easy to relate to what has happened and why.
Spend some extra effort (e.g., an institution having considerable monies tied up in "landscaping") and tell me *what* is serviced in each zone and I can get even cleverer in scheduling the resource! Again, more complex -- yet still "makes sense" (to someone savvy enough to *have* this information to provide).
*FORCING* all users to buy in at that level of commitment would undoubtedly intimidate many. OTOH, *not* having that capability ("you need a software/hardware upgrade") is a disservice to those folks who "started simply" and grow in their appreciation of your capabilities.
But a TV has few "settings". The "TV" function is relatively simple and has a long history.
When I was interviewing "users" before I started on this, one (blind) gentleman complained about the inadequacy of his "address book". (Cripes! It's an address book. What the hell could be wrong with something as simple as THAT??)
He asked about having multiple address books. (Huh?) Turns out, he had
*5,000* contacts recorded, there. (imagine sorting through 5000 names with a braille/audio interface for a particular contact!) In his case, he was servicing "clients" for his 9-to-5 and had all of their contact information recorded in this database.
Splitting it into N address books would be *less* efficient than giving him a mechanism to condition which contacts are "visible" at any given time. E.g., if he happened to be in TownA servicing clients, then it would be silly to even acknowledge any contacts NOT in TownA!
Additionally, he would *manually* make annotations for each client visited (or contacted via phone) to track his most recent contact date (so he would know which clients hadn't been contacted recently and could make extra effort to reach them). Of course, the "content" of each of those contacts was (manually) tracked, elsewhere.
So, he spent a lot of his "work time" just navigating to the data that he needed and updating his "records". Wouldn't it be *so* much easier if he could place a call, send an email, etc. *from* that address book; have the address book record the date/time/duration of the contact; whether it was "completed" successfully or not (no one home, etc.); provide an automatic mechanism for him to add notes about the contact "then and there" (instead of having to remember/record this "elsewhere" and do the data entry at a later time) as well as leave instructions to himself as to any followup required: "Gee, it's been a busy day! Who did I visit? Did I accomplish everything that I intended to? Are there any activities that I need to schedule as a result of these contacts?"
Do you provide this sort of "built-in" capability for *every* user? Do you "sell" it as a custom add-on (and spend your time customizing products one-off for your customers)? Or, do you provide a mechanism whereby the user (or someone HE selects) can implement his requirements?
What happens is people convince themselves that "it doesn't matter" -- simply because they have no choice (or, no applicable help). Imagine if I took the approach of closing the design, entirely. Or, forced folks to write code in C? ASM??
Would you *ever* think the ability to *read* "wouldn't matter"? Yet, chances are, if you lose your vision *now*, you will have no choice but to rely on "talking books" or "screen readers" (you aren't going to get access to your "home owner's association newsletter" in any "accessible" form!).
You might want to try playing with a screen reader some day to see just how
*bad* this experience is! And, then realize how *wonderful* it is given the alternative (of being cut off from "print", news, etc.). Here: No cost -- other than your *time*. JAWS is probably the most widely recognized (highly developed?) product in use. Install it in a sandbox (if you don't trust it), turn off your monitor. And see how much you can do with it -- on websites, email, news, etc. that you would typically indulge.
You think these are the *only* things that these people "need help with"? Do you think they will ask their caregiver to spend what limited time they have available (due to cost for paid service or imposition on friends/family) instead of: weekly grocery shopping, trips to doctor, "companionship", etc. Increasingly, "blind" means "old". Not seeing is just one of many "issues" they face. Many have no remaining family -- or, families that have families of their own (or far away), limited/fixed income (unemployed), etc.
Instead, they'll just learn to "live without"; "adapt".
That speaks contrary to all the effort that is currently expended in most products, software, etc. Do you have a ~/.profile or ~/.cshrc? Why don't you just live with profile(5)? Why even support a system-wide profile(5) instead of hard-coding those behaviors in the shell, itself? Why have more than one choice of shells?
Why have different ringtones, wallpapers, display fonts, "annunciators", etc.? Why allow a user to pick his own login name -- what's wrong with User1, User2, etc.?
Yes, they do as little as they can get away with. But, they also get annoyed if they *can't* change something that they *want* to change! As I said previously, they all want it to work out-of-the-box... BUT, the way
*they* want that to be, not the way some developer decided it should be! (especially when experience has taught them that developers are clueless)
Same here. There was a senior programmer in the department who was totally blind. He once asked somebody to teach him the light switches so he could tell by touch to turn the lights on when he was first one in, and not terrify later people when they found out they weren't alone. For fun at home he raised goats and rebuilt auto engines. He had dual braille readers and could read one text with each hand at the same time. Apparently eyes are trained to work in lock-step, but hands aren't. The point, I think, is that blind people can do excellent work if they have tools they can use. Whether the rest of us are wise enough and rich enough to create tools like those is the question.
I care that it is convenient, unambiguous, and clear. I don't care if it is pronounceable. Symbols are better than letters because they stand out better in comparison to the rest of the code - thus "Y gets 3" is the only option here that does not work well as an assignment operator.
(I know you like writing long posts, but most of it seemed to be rhetoric, so I snipped it.)
Programming is an ideal (high paying) occupation for blind/VI folks. There's little need to navigate the physical environment: just sit at your desk and rely on the *memory* you have honed, of necessity, to remember what sighted programmers would "refresh" visually. Few folks want to sit around waiting for a disability check and the "kindness of others"!
The individual I spent most of my professional time with would drag me out to play pinball whenever he knew a machine was nearby.
He would also push to learn how to service the Reading Machine as a means of cutting his reliance on "factory service" (and the lost time waiting for someone to hop on a plane) -- tricky as the machines were physically large (washing machine sized), wire-wrapped, and rather fragile.
(In the 40 years since, I think the functionality is now available in a cell-phone sized device; maybe even integrated into the phone, by now!)
A single line braille terminal (just an I/O device) is about $3K ($70-100/cell). So, he was lucky enough to have the resources to buy *two* (or, the purchase heavily subsidized by tax dollars). OTOH, it's *just* a "display" so you need to carry a COTS laptop as well (or have one accessible with appropriate software already installed; you're not going to just plug it into any "random" machine)
Hands *want* to operate "synchronously" (try doing things at different rates in different hands) but you can break that "connection" esp if there is an incentive to do so. (e.g., rub your belly and pat your head)
Many of the things that we do (take for granted) aren't really hard-wired but simply learned behaviors (least effort). When I initially thought these folks had "sharper senses", I was met with a chuckle, told to close my eyes and : "See, there's no magic involved. You're just relying on your vision because its *easiest* for you! *I* don't have that option!"
Of course! Assuming the absence of additional "disabilities" (they often are not singular things), there is no reason why you can't perform similar tasks -- but in a different way. E.g., if you couldn't
*easily* look up and refresh your memory of the previous line of text, you'd learn to hold it better in your memory (as the alternative is to navigate up one line with your braille terminal, voice output, etc.).
Listening to synthetic speech (for someone who has no *need* to do so) is tedious and slow. OTOH, folks who are used to listening to it often complained that the maximum speaking rate was never fast enough; that they were always "waiting" for the synthesizer. Imagine listening to spoken word at rates approaching/exceeding your visual reading rate!
The problem is that folks don't consider the situations of others when we design our products. We assume everyone has two hands, two working eyes, adequate hearing, mobility, good motor skills, etc. EVEN IF THE PRODUCT'S INTERFACE DOESN'T *require* THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.
The fallacy in the AT community is thinking that (designing for) "accessibility is free"; that it doesn't cost anything (NRE or product cost) to design "universal" interfaces (and, what, exactly, is meant by "universal"?)
*My* goal is to put a number on that and provide a framework that can act as a starting point -- so others don't have to recreate similar libraries/mechanisms from scratch (what would your development efforts be like if you didn't have preexisting GUIs to rely on when creating a new product? If, instead, you had to write your own before you could deliver a product??)
COBOL failed because it's syntax was designed primarily to be read by non-programmers and the syntax was both cumbersome to use and was not expressive enough to accommodate newer programming methodologies.
Yes, COBOL later introduced a more algebriac-like syntax, but it did not abandon the problematic "readable" syntax - the newer syntax was simply permitted as a substitute.
Tell people to open a valve when they want it on and close the valve when they want it off. That has worked remarkably well since the invention of managed irrigation ~7000 years ago. 8-)
Why would you? Why are they suddenly worthy?
For a lot of people the answer is "Yes!" It has been estimated that more than 1 billion VCRs flashed 12:00 for their entire lifetime.
No. Many people are unapologetically non-technical and get upset when they discover things to be more complicated than using a doorknob.
That's already too complex for some people - it involves "zones" and possibly even "setting a timer".
Don't you know the Zone is something to be avoided?
formatting link
[ SpiralZone.com seems to have closed shop, but the series is up on kisscartoon.me. Interestingly, the series starts "in progress" and the backstory unfolds as the series progresses. The episode "Oversight" is the best short (20 min) introduction.
Most folks replying to topics already have their mind made up. So, the point of any further discussion isn't to try to "win an argument" or "change their mind" but, rather, to speak to those reading over their shoulders; to get *them* to think about the issue and form their own opinions.
Or not. (many people avoid thinking about things that have difficult "solutions")
I suspect most folks don't personally know (many!) blind/deaf/handicapped individuals. And, probably haven't invested enough time on a "personal" level to be able to engage them on what are very personal topics.
Ever asked a blind person what it's like not to see? Or, a deaf person not to hear? etc. (Or, do those things never cross your mind??)
So, people form opinions based on what they *think* the other person's experience is like: he's not openly grumbling about his "condition" (really? would that make a difference?? Or, would you just dismiss him as a "whiner"??) so he must have figured out how to *adapt*!
End of problem.
Other people fail to realize there even *is* a problem! How many people are color blind? Suffer from Parkinsonian tremor? Essential tremor? Do you even *consider* these issues in your designs? Or, do you just forget about them and expect they'll somehow "adapt"? And, when your product return rate is higher than desired (desired being warranty failures, only!), is it *your* fault? Or, the customers'?
I, OTOH, exploit every learning opportunity that I can. E.g., I've used my relationship with the (deaf) couple across the street to get a better understanding of *their* problems, solutions, culture, etc.
"How do you tell when someone comes to the door if you can't hear the doorbell?" Ans: doorbell flashes several lights in the house.
"What if you're asleep when someone comes knocking?" Ans: the bed vibrates
"How do you know if the toilet is 'running on' (faulty valve)?" Ans: our water bill NEXT MONTH will be higher than expected and we'll have top figure out the cause
"How do you know when the washer/dryer is finished with a load?" Ans: we *watch* it.
"So, obviously, the same applies to microwave oven, kitchen timer, etc.?" Ans: no, we've got a little "egg timer" that we can use -- if we discipline ourselves to do so.
"What about the fire alarm?" Ans: hopefully we see the light come on to help you find the exit
"And if you're asleep at the time?" Ans: ??
"Why is your newborn *deaf* baby considered 'perfect'?" Ans: they don't see deafness as a liability but, rather, as a "goal"
[language stuff elided as we've already "agreed to disagree"]
Amusingly, many people express sentiments like that -- esp when it comes to various debilitating/terminal illnesses. Though, most often, it is expressed as an imperative to *others*: "Shoot me when that happens!" (as if the effort isn't something they could undertake, themselves)
In the past few years, I've watched several friends/colleagues die pretty nasty deaths. All with forewarning. "The illness will progress along these lines... ... until ultimately claiming your life. The actual *cause* of death will be (asphyxiation, etc.)"
In each case, *yesterday* was the best day they were going to have (and that same thing will be true again "tomorrow"). I.e., things will only get *worse*. More painful. Loss of capabilities. etc.
Yet, no one has taken the "express exit"! And, had they been asked prior to their Dx's, I suspect they all would have expressed a statement like the above!
And, I don't consider any of them "cowardly". In fact, watching someone struggle with ovarian Ca, esophageal Ca, stomach Ca, ALS, etc. seems to me to be far more "courageous" than the other expedient!
I came closest to asking my friend with the esophageal Ca (prior to his death) this very question: "What makes you want to wake up in the morning? What are you thinking about *knowing* the inevitable outcome AND the gruesome path ahead of you?"
But, it seemed selfish to ask. So, I remain in the dark.
Sadly, I later learned that he had confided far more in me about his thinking about his illness, prognosis, treatment alternatives, etc. than any "relative". Leaving me to wonder if I perhaps did *him* a disservice by not giving him the chance to answer my unposed question!
(sigh)
But, I have two friends currently hording meds for their "Final Exit" (reference to a text). And, very vocal about their efforts. So, perhaps when *their* times draw near, I'll be more willing to broach the subject.
[OTOH, if you suddenly lose your vision, please drop me a line before you put that one in the chamber! :> ]
No, it actually *is* true that their senses are sharper: not because their sensory modality is better, but rather because the brain cells that would have been devoted to vision instead are devoted to processing other modalities. [The visual cortex is roughly 1/8 of your brain - there's a whole lot of capacity there.]
It has been proven that the brain adapts to loss of a sense modality by redirecting the cells that process that input to other tasks. It has also been proven that it happens very quickly: there was a study in which sighted people were blindfolded for several weeks and given brain scans as they adapted to being sightless and tried to learn braille. Their visual cortexes shifted to processing other inputs: mainly touch because "reading" now involved their fingers, but also some small areas shifted to processing hearing and smell. When the blindfolds were removed, most of the cortex quickly shifted back to processing vision, but in many of the subjects some enhanced sense of touch remained.
The study did not continue long enough to see whether hearing and smell eventually would improve similarly as did the sense of touch.
It was discovered in a second study using the same subjects that the brain adapted more quickly to being blind when it happened again. The subjects didn't experience the same disorientation as in the first study.
A related study using other subjects discovered that an EM jolt given to the visual cortex allowed it to transition more quickly to doing something else [a possible aid for those who become suddenly blind].
I have living will and health care proxy that stipulate no heroic measures to save my life. I trust my family not to contest them because they have the same provisions.
In many ancient cultures, the elderly and infirm were *supposed* to "go away" when they became a drain on the others. It isn't cowardly to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others. The herd survives by leaving the slow behind.
Nor do I think it is courageous to battle on when there is no hope of winning. I think it *is* cowardly to spend all your resources fighting a losing battle and leave nothing for your family. Someone who has no family can do whatever they want.
It's been estimated that, for all causes, in the US the last week of life costs an average $200,000. The average cost of treating cancer exceeds $1 million - more than most people will earn in their lifetime. Who pays for that? "Other People's Money"[*] AKA insurance AKA the biggest legal scam in history. Is every life worth the expense?. Extremely doubtful ... I *know* mine isn't.
No matter what your sensibilities, the fact is that society does not have the resources to carry those who don't contribute. We are trillions in debt already because of bleeding hearts trying.
[*] a good movie, but not a role model for society.
formatting link
You know that is a possibility 8-/ along with several other potentially nasty outcomes. My health is stable and I'm not going broke, but if that balance shifts negatively, I won't burden others to care for me.
In case I forget, I'll leave a note in my will for someone to send you an email. 8-)
Whatever you're smoking, send me some. Growing old sucks!!!
Yup, same here. But, one of "medicine's" dirty little secrets is there's no *guarantee* that they will be honored, in practice. The doctor's ignored C's dad's DNR on at least one occasion. She had to read them the riot act to ensure it didn't happen again.
And, of course, you always have the risk of your "advocate(s)" not having the commitment to follow through on your wishes. E.g., C's mom had her *own* wishes regarding the dad's EoL; and it didn't bother her that they were in direct conflict with *his* wishes! (Hey, *he* can't do anything to fight for HIS desires; I win!)
I have a lady friend with her "DNR" tattooed on her chest. She
*probably* thinks that affords her some sort of "guarantee" (They can't say they were unaware!) OTOH, I could see a lawyer arguing that the cost of *her* changing her mind could have been so high (tattoo removal) that, perhaps, she *had* changed her mind but hadn't come around to having the tattoo removed.
Screwed up society when *others* seem to think they have a right to decide how *you* handle your own life...
Yup.
Yup. Talk to a financial planner about what you'll "need" for the rest of your life. You'll discover that a huge portion of your assets are "consumed" in the last ~2 years of your life. I guess folks EAT MORE just before they die?? :-/
OTOH, I suspect our health care system couldn't abruptly handle having all of that extra "service"/demand removed. I suspect it's all that EoL care that pays many of *their* bills.
OToOH, I wonder how much of those funds come from the *patient*, his family, etc.?
I think a movement towards assisted suicide, enhanced medical directives for *all* would scare the hell out of that industry -- and its investors! "37% of people have registered DNR's. That's up from the previous year's figure. How are we going to make up for that loss of BUSINESS?"
Some 20+ years back, I was in England for business. Watching one of their
4 (?) TV stations to kill time in the hotel before a meeting. They had an interesting, candid discussion re: health care resources (NHS). IIRC, one of the comments offered was, "Do we fix this 80 year old (hypothetical) woman's broken hip -- with the expectation that she's going to die soon, regardless -- or, do we vaccinate 200(?) kids against something that could make even *one* of their lives better?"
But, in this country, those topics are taboo. "Rationing", "Assisted
has been written in the ~40 years since then!); texts like _Final Exit_; etc. Anyone watching the sales of those as an indicator of societal trends would have a greater insight (beyond the "If I get that way, somebody SHOOT me" sorts of casual comments you encounter)
There's a fine line between "don't/won't contribute", "can't contribute" and "can't carry their full load".
At "retirement", has the individual stopped contributing? Or, do you rationalize that their switch to 100% consumer is considered contributing??
How do you address the needs of the disabled? Do we euthanize infants born with severe handicaps? Even a "science based, probabilistic model" as to their expected societal contributions/costs would be a tough sell -- when the infant is *yours*.
Is "inability to conceive/father" a genuine cause for resources to be diverted to facilitate that? Does society *really* "need" your offspring? Can't someone *else's* make up for that shortfall??
What about the flip side: being *able* to conceive yet being unable to provide for their needs? Should that be criminal?
The fear is that you may not be (physically) capable of acting out those wishes. And, reliant on others to make that judgement call IN YOUR INTERESTS (ignoring their own concerns).
Consider mistakes that happen in the normal "practice of medicine" (e.g., don't you see the big red letters at thew top of the chart allerting you to my allergies? then, why are you preparing to administer that med???) and any expectation that this SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT (to you) issue will be executed properly is wishful thinking.
Heh heh heh... no, the point is to be able to grill you as to what you're thinking while your grey matter is still "intact"! :>
The consolation is that it happens to most of us!
"I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like grandpa; not screaming in terror like the folks on the bus he was driving!"
Sorry, I should have been more explicit; the common perception is that there is an implicit offset that accompanies this (or any other) disability: like a balloon squeezed at one end getting larger at the other.
A newly blind person (adult/child/infant) has no sharper hearing (e.g.) than any other person (adult/child/infant). You don't get magically compensated for the loss of a sensory receptor (just like your right arm doesn't magically get stronger if you're born without a left one).
Rather, the resources associated with that sense are freed up (there's nothing "wired" to them). *You* choose to train them to adapt to other uses. Or not.
Because ("normal people") "don't have to" in order to live our lives, we don't. We don't *see* as much detail as we can -- simply because we don't *need* to (UNTIL we need to). E.g., I can look at my hands and see generic hands. Or, I can look "closer" (without actually bringing them closer to my eyes) and notice all sorts of detail that was "not there" in my previous inspection.
Watch TV (or your monitor) and you see "images". Look "harder" and you see the individual dots/scan lines of which their composed.
When I interviewed VI folks, they almost universally exclaimed how glad they were NOT to be deaf! (i.e., loss of vision being so much easier to cope with than loss of hearing). OTOH, if you asked most sighted folks, they would probably rate sight as more precious.
They're (VI) explanation is that you can do so much more with hearing (esp once you learn "to hear") as it is omnidirectional (if you don't see the bear creeping up behind you, you're LUNCH!) isn't obscured by objects in its path, etc.
[This was made clear to me on an occasion when I was trying to get the attention of a deaf neighbor who was gardening in her back yard with her back to me. I was chagrined at how *impossible* that problem was to solve without walking around the house, letting myself into her yard and cautiously approaching her -- soas not to startle]
Plasticity. But, it only works when you try to *make* it work. (and, when you have the "other senses" on which to rely).
E.g., loss of vision due to something like diabetic neuropathy is often complicated by other loss of sensitivity in the extremities (finger tips) that render them unsuitable for the desired level of "input". There was some work done on using the large surface of a person's *back* as a "tablet" that could provide input when things like fingertips weren't sensitive enough. Not very convenient, though.
The other problem is motivation. *Loss* of a sense is often accompanied by depression and a sense of helplessness. Few people are motivated to *learn* a new skill to replace a lost sense. Esp when that loss comes late in life: they just resign themselves ("adapt"! :< ) to living without.
It takes a fair bit of work to refine a "replacement" sense. Esp when you are always subconsciously thinking of it in contrast to what you
*had*, previously.
I can sight read L1 braille about as fast as most typical (L1) braille "tactile readers". (I use L2 so infrequently that my reading rate, there, drops to a crawl -- folks learn to leave me notes in L1 if they want me to be able to read and respond in any reasonable period!)
OTOH, when I try to read with my fingertips, (even L1) my reading rate drops precipitously. I have to think about what's under my fingers and convert those sensations to a visual representation -- i.e., construct the braille cell in my mind -- and then "read" that "visually" (even though my eyes aren't really "looking at it").
Navigation also becomes more tedious; I can't just dart my eyes back (or up a row) to confirm -- or REEVALUATE -- what I "read" before. Instead, I have to backpedal my hands over the cells that I've just "read" (read backwards, so to speak). I.e., you learn to read two-handed to be effective.
[In the context of writing code and programming languages, this is where consistency can yield substantial rewards. I.e., if certain operations are done in certain ways/styles, the reader can *infer* quite a lot without having to actually verify all the details. Some of that comes from language design choices; other comes from consistency on the part of the *writer*]
A 60-ish person losing vision to MD or DR probably wouldn't have the patience to deal with that level of frustration. They'd, instead, replace print media with some other form -- which might also prove challenging (e.g., my comprehension for audio modalities is much less than visual ones).
It's only in these situations do you begin to realize how many products and devices *require* sight -- even though they don't inherently *need* to! (e.g., before touchscreens, you could make a phone call without looking at your phone!)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.