That is a good point. I hadn't thought of that. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill White To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:30 PM Subject: Re: Improving my teaching approach and/or sensitivity
The reason you should learn the sighted jargon is that if you know the sighted jargon, you can look up a procedure on Google, and translate that procedure into something you can implement with your screen reader of choice. Bill White [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean Menzies To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Improving my teaching approach and/or sensitivity Hello Brian, You said: 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. My response: But why should I struggle to learn the intricacies of “sighted world jargon” such as mouse click vernacular when I don’t need to? Yes, I know how to use the Jaws left and right click simulations, and when and how I use them. But does it really matter that I understand the relationship to a real mouse? E.g., that left click is select, for instance? It sounds like an effort not toward computer literacy, but toward making the blind user fall more squarely into the sighted user camp. Yes, I understand computerese instructions I find on the Internet, and have no trouble using them. (except for when it tells me to click on things JAWS can’t find.) But that’s another story. I agree with the poster that a more appropriate use of language here would be to “select” something, etc. In other words, name the action/result, rather than referencing it through sighted jargon. Jean From: Brian Vogel Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 1:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Improving my teaching approach and/or sensitivity 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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12977 (20160204) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12977 (20160204) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
