On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:10 pm, Soronel Haetir <[email protected]> wrote: Her blindness stemmed from an unformed visual cortex rather than anything actually wrong with her eyes. It turns out those same brain circuits are involved in picture development whether something is seen or not. So even the assumption that someone can relate to that sort of description is not necessarily well founded.
Soronel, Which circles right back around to ground zero. I have definitely been trying to describe my "general client" without getting too bogged down in the idiosyncracies that can and do pop up as a direct result of an individual's sensory history. I actually do what you've mentioned as far as giving directions and, for instance, have never used the phrase, "swipe over that text to select it," because that method of selection means nothing, or virtually nothing, to anyone who has never been capable of using it and is of no help even to those who did and could, but aren't able to now. The point I was trying to get across, and it seems what I've said has had limited success in that department, is that any user of a computer had better understand how the general jargon of computer use relates to their actual technique of accomplishing a given action. I actively teach both, tying the two together. As far as my personal attempts to customize my instruction to a given client, I don't think I could make it any more clear than I have that I do, indeed, do this as a standard practice. It just goes with the territory. If ever, "one size fits all," were blatantly false it's in the case of one-on-one instruction for assistive technology of any variety. Brian
