Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication
Augmentative and alternative communication has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Disability GA‑class | |||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 2009. Further details are available here. |
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is generally excellent. I have made minor grammatical and stylistic changes where appropriate.
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | It follows all MoS guidelines. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Many sources are not linked to online content, but could be. I did this for one reference, but others could use hyperlinks as well. (Try Googling the name of the journal article.) While I think this suggestion could improve the references, I don't believe it should be an obstacle to achieving GA status. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The citations are good and very reliable. I have access to Beukelman and Mirenda, the most-used source in the article, and have checked a dozen or so citations. Each time, the source backs up the claim, and in no case was there plagiarism. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems found. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article answers nearly any general question about AAC that I can imagine. I reviewed this article with a friend of mine who is taking a masters-level class on AAC, and she believes that this article is comprehensive. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article stays focused, without unnecessary tangents or interruptions. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | After discussing the article's scope with several people more knowledgeable than myself about the topic, I'm confident that there are no serious POV problems. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This is not an issue at this time. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images are free content, and are tagged appropriately. I've checked them with TinEye, and none look suspect. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images and captions are all good. | |
7. Overall assessment. | This is a good article. |
- REFS :) Just logged in to find that all the references are now beutifully organised! Thank you so much Quadell! :) Failedwizard (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to do it! – Quadell (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- I spoke with some other reviewers, and the consensus is that the lead, while good, still leaves out too much of the article. If you could add one more paragraph summarizing some of the other sections (in the TOC), I think that'll do it. – Quadell (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed! Well done, and congratulations! – Quadell (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whoop! Thank you so much for all your help - I think you've now edited the article more than I have. I really hope to be working with you in the future again - my two little projects from now are to generate a composite image for this site and to sort out the references in Speech_generating_device in preperation for a big extension there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Failedwizard (talk • contribs) 07:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
FAC chat
Hello all. A couple of things. I notice that Courcelles has withdrawn the commons deletion request for the communication book picture. Not sure what we want to do about this? Can we return the picture to the article, do you think?
I am also getting mildly concerned that we have had no more reviews in about 2 weeks, and the article is creeping to the bottom of the list and may fall off the bottom. I suspect it is partly because it is a rather esoteric subject, unfamiliar to many of the regular reviewers. Do you think it would be worth posting on some of the project noticeboards (e.g. disability) to inform people of the candidacy and ask if anybody would like to review it? I don't know if it is kosher, but I imagine if it is neutrally worded it would be okay. In the meantime, I think I will post to the FAC page just to update that we have dealt with the issues raised to date. --Poule (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Another couple of things. Personally, I don't like the photo of Hawking that we have. There are some really nice ones here(especially the ones from NASA) which have compatible licenses for Commons. Shall we pick one and upload it? I also noticed these lightwriter pictures on Commons [1][2][3] which might be useful somewhere, if not in this article then elsewhere.
It also occurs to me that we haven't provided alt text descriptions of the images for those with visual problems. Not good for a disability related article!! --Poule (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think the alt-text is a very good point. I do think there might be other pictures,
at the same time I think it might be a good idea if we picked a new one before getting rid of the old, maybe? :(Failedwizard (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)- Also, It might take some time to get permission for one of the other hawking-ones, I'd very much like Quadell's input here - I've got a suspicion that just being 'Creative Commons-licensed content' on Flickr isn't enough, as per Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr, which surprised the daylights out of me when I nearly came unstuck by it. Of course, I could be very wrong on this indeed. :( Failedwizard (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Quadell's input would be great but I'm pretty sure that photos on US government employees are free, and some of the Hawking ones are.e.g. [4], and there are also others available that have the right set of symbols listed. Poule (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is an awesome photo... I'm going to take a stab at the corrections listed at the FAC if you don't mind - thought I'd give you a headsup so we don't cross streams :) Failedwizard (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind :) Would do you me a favour and pop something on my talkpage when you've done a run-through so I have a look at anything left over? :) have fun! Failedwizard (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you start from the bottom of the list and we can meet in the middle? :-)Poule (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Give me five min for a cup of tea and I'll be right with you. Failedwizard (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you start from the bottom of the list and we can meet in the middle? :-)Poule (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind :) Would do you me a favour and pop something on my talkpage when you've done a run-through so I have a look at anything left over? :) have fun! Failedwizard (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is an awesome photo... I'm going to take a stab at the corrections listed at the FAC if you don't mind - thought I'd give you a headsup so we don't cross streams :) Failedwizard (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Quadell's input would be great but I'm pretty sure that photos on US government employees are free, and some of the Hawking ones are.e.g. [4], and there are also others available that have the right set of symbols listed. Poule (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, It might take some time to get permission for one of the other hawking-ones, I'd very much like Quadell's input here - I've got a suspicion that just being 'Creative Commons-licensed content' on Flickr isn't enough, as per Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr, which surprised the daylights out of me when I nearly came unstuck by it. Of course, I could be very wrong on this indeed. :( Failedwizard (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, sorry, I've been away for a few days. It's true that not all CC-licensed images are acceptable. cc-by and cc-by-sa are fine, but cc-nd or cc-nc are not. Most of these are nc (non-commercial) or nd (no derivatives), so we can't use them. (I've had a lot of luck, however, e-mailing Flickr users and telling them "I'd like to use your image on Wikipedia, but I only can if you're willing to change the license". So if any of them are really good, it's worth a try.)
But I believe anything created by NASA is in the Public Domain and can be used here. This one says "Photo Credit: (NASA/Paul Alers)", so you could upload it and tag it {{PD-USGov-NASA}}
. Great work on the FA nomination, by the way! – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I've uploaded a few, and picked one, but feel free switch it for another if you like it better. I almost wondered about cropping one so as to show Hawking and his device better, but leave that up to others.
- BTW, is either of you good at programming little videos or computer simulations or whatever they are called? Things like this. [5] I was wondering how easy or difficult it would be to make a little demonstration of the various different scanning types. e.g. row column, circular etc. A picture saving a thousand words and all? Probably just a crazy idea.--Poule (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I wish! I'm afraid I don't have the software for that. – Quadell (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- We can build that, we have the technology. Just logging in to say I'm going to be offwiki for up to 48 hours with family stuff. Will probably answer talk page posts and such though... Failedwizard (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, I look forward to seeing what your wizardry can produce. I don't believe you failed wizardry school at all! --Poule (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- We can build that, we have the technology. Just logging in to say I'm going to be offwiki for up to 48 hours with family stuff. Will probably answer talk page posts and such though... Failedwizard (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I wish! I'm afraid I don't have the software for that. – Quadell (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
FAC followup
Well, that is disappointing. Frankly, I am not terribly surprised though: so few reviews, and no supports in 3+ weeks pretty much doomed us. On the plus side, we got no "opposes" which is great! I don't know what you guys want to do, but if you'd like to have another go in a month or so, then I'd support that. In the meantime I'd like to suggest:
- we request a formal peer review: Cryptic's comments/suggestions make it even clearer to me that we need this. If Cryptic could/would to continue the reviews s/he has been doing that would be wonderful, but I'd suggest requesting yet another voice too via Peer review.
- See below. For the record, I am a eunuch. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Does that mean we should use the pronoun 'e', rather than he/she? Failedwizard (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can we go straight to Peer review or is there a mandatory waiting period? If the former, I voe nominate today, otherwise postpone decision. Failedwizard (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- See below. For the record, I am a eunuch. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- we add the alttext
- All in favour - but not got much experience of what precisely to write as alttext, I'm fairly low on VI experience, can take a shot if you like? Failedwizard (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- we get the marvellous scanning demo that Failedwizard is going to conjure out of computing brilliance.
- Will new section this below Failedwizard (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- as I mentioned above, I think part of our problem with FAC is that most FAC review regulars don't feel knowledgeable/comfortable about the subject matter; on WP disability content experts are sadly few and far between. If we do go back to FAC, then let's at least inform editors on the relevant noticeboards know about the candidacy, so that they can review the article if they choose.
What do you think? I've made some of them before but didn't always get a response, so I'd be glad to hear your opinions on these suggestions - and any others that you have - so that we can move forward together. --Poule (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm game to keep pushing hard. I plan to go big rather than go home :) Failedwizard (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was disappointing. The delegate who closed the nomination indicated that it was merely because no one had finished a review and supported, and said "You'll probably have better luck at FAC if you start afresh in a few weeks." I personally don't feel that it needs a peer review. That would obviously take a lot of time, and we could do that, and it might improve the article. But it might also be a waste of time. (I'm confident that it's already at FA quality; it just needs more participation.) My suggestion would be to wait a couple weeks and resubmit, and this time do more to invite reviews.
Cryptic C62, thank you for your review, sincerely. I only wish you'd been given a chance to complete it. Next time it's submitted, if you finished your review, that might be enough. If someone else reviews, that would be excellent. (Perhaps we shot ourselves in the foot by having Poule, FW, and me all nominating, with no one left to review? Perhaps if the strategy had been different -- Poule nominating, and FW and me reviewing -- it would have been different? Ah, water under the bridge.) But anyway, this article clearly deserves to be an FA, and I think we can get it there with persistence. – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Shall we say renominate on October 1st? Gives us a nice solid target... and we can do a bit of begging for reviews at the same time. Failedwizard (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like we have to wait two weeks before requesting a formal peer review, which is too bad, but I still think it would be worth doing as if it goes well it can lead to an early support at FAC - which can obviously be very helpful- and strategic. I also think that we are too close to the article, and getting more outside eyes would iron out things before rather than at FAC.
- I'm going to be "on the road" for a good chunk of the next month, away from my books and with uncertain internet. I'd rather we wait for resubmission until I get back on October 7th. So my suggestion is that we submit for a peer review on the 24th and hope we get a quick bite; if we do, so much the better and we can work on that for a week or so. If not, we can always decide to withdraw the peer review request and try again at FAC without it.
- BTW, I have a feeling that supports by those involved in editing the article wouldn't have counted for much! I'm sure the delegates have that sort of thing figured out! --Poule (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see you point, but I'd still vote to nominate back for FAC soon as possible. I promise not to rename SGD, split the article, or move history back before you're back if it helps :) Quadell, it looks like your vote - I imagine the commons drive might be a factor for you? Failedwizard (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Failedwizard, I'm afraid my funnybone is missing with regards to this last post, and smiley faces don't make the incorrect suppositions any better at all. I suggested we wait a whole 6 extra days so that this article can become featured as quickly and smoothly as possible - not because I don't trust you, or whatever it is you seem to imagine. For example, just yesterday you asked me to answer a review question because you didn't have the source; how is going to look on the first few make-or-break days of FAC if we are not all available to answer questions and comments, with sources ready to hand? What's the hurry in any case? We want it to pass with flying colours, and if we get all our ducks in a row it'll pass much more quickly too. --Poule (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- No offense intended, will disagree with less levity in future Failedwizard (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Failedwizard, I'm afraid my funnybone is missing with regards to this last post, and smiley faces don't make the incorrect suppositions any better at all. I suggested we wait a whole 6 extra days so that this article can become featured as quickly and smoothly as possible - not because I don't trust you, or whatever it is you seem to imagine. For example, just yesterday you asked me to answer a review question because you didn't have the source; how is going to look on the first few make-or-break days of FAC if we are not all available to answer questions and comments, with sources ready to hand? What's the hurry in any case? We want it to pass with flying colours, and if we get all our ducks in a row it'll pass much more quickly too. --Poule (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see you point, but I'd still vote to nominate back for FAC soon as possible. I promise not to rename SGD, split the article, or move history back before you're back if it helps :) Quadell, it looks like your vote - I imagine the commons drive might be a factor for you? Failedwizard (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm doing a lot for the Commons drive, yes, and more importantly I'm a candidate to become a steward in the upcoming Wikimedia elections. Voting runs from September 15th to October 6th, so I may be quite distracted during this time. In an unfortunate coincidence, I'll also be out of town from the 14th through the 20th, and then again on the weekend of the 24th, with uncertain internet access. So that's my situation. If anyone wants to submit to PR, I'll help out however I can in the time I have. – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck for the elections! I'm disapointed to find that I won't be able to vote :( I didn't have enought edits before the deadline :( but let me know if there is anything I can do... Failedwizard (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
¿¡Estas krimpiendo!?
Resolved
|
---|
If these are somehow related, perhaps it would be worthwhile to explain what the heck a dynamic screen speech generating device is.
|
No es problema, soy un "baller"
- "However, high-tech devices typically require programming, and as they are prone to be unreliable" Err... what? Why are they unreliable? This could be interpreted so many different ways that it's not even worth trying to list them all.
- replaced with 'and a low-tech system is often recommended as a backup in case of mechanical failure.' Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- This part is clearer, but now I don't understand how mechanical failures relate to the necessity of programming. It seems to me that the two clauses are unrelated, but just happened to be squooshed into the same sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- De squooshed, and I've removed the programming part as self-explanatory. Failedwizard (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- The point was to counterbalance the advantages and disadvantages of low and high tech systems, for which the programming part is a factor. I'm going to have another go at this. --Poule (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- There's a possibility of a hostage to fortune here Poule...
I think there are a number of much more important factors - it's amazing how many VOCA users haven't touched the vocab *at all*.Also calling it programming is a bit of a stretch... (admittedly at least one device has an unexpectedly complete scripting engine, but it's not programming as programmers would understand it) Failedwizard (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)- With all due respect, we have to go with what the reliable sources say, not our own experience. When talking about the disadvantages of high tech systems, DeCoste specifically mentions the "time to program". --Poule (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't put that entirely clearly, I'm not disputing the source, I'm just noting the meaning of 'program' in a book that DeCoste writes for AAC professionals, may be slightly different to the meaning that, well, programmers take it to mean. We don't have a massive difference of opinion here, I was quite happy with 'program' originally - but if DeCoste is using it in the sense of, say, adding vocabulary to the device, it might be clearer to say so. But I'll leave it entirely up to you Failedwizard (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I take your point that programming has a different meaning to computer programmers; but we program our VCRS, DVDs, stoves and telephones. None of that involves complicated codes or scripting or whatever. Program is the word used over and over again in the AAC literature, as well as the source, so I think we should just leave it as is. --Poule (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't put that entirely clearly, I'm not disputing the source, I'm just noting the meaning of 'program' in a book that DeCoste writes for AAC professionals, may be slightly different to the meaning that, well, programmers take it to mean. We don't have a massive difference of opinion here, I was quite happy with 'program' originally - but if DeCoste is using it in the sense of, say, adding vocabulary to the device, it might be clearer to say so. But I'll leave it entirely up to you Failedwizard (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, we have to go with what the reliable sources say, not our own experience. When talking about the disadvantages of high tech systems, DeCoste specifically mentions the "time to program". --Poule (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- There's a possibility of a hostage to fortune here Poule...
- The point was to counterbalance the advantages and disadvantages of low and high tech systems, for which the programming part is a factor. I'm going to have another go at this. --Poule (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- De squooshed, and I've removed the programming part as self-explanatory. Failedwizard (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- This part is clearer, but now I don't understand how mechanical failures relate to the necessity of programming. It seems to me that the two clauses are unrelated, but just happened to be squooshed into the same sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- replaced with 'and a low-tech system is often recommended as a backup in case of mechanical failure.' Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That's it!. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC) BTW, thanks for all your work on all of this--Poule (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fabulous - I'll just pop to the office to fetch the relevent sources... in the meantime, can I just check that these edits [8] didn't affect the issues that you highlighted and then closed? I'm sure you'll probably and seen and approve but wanted to make double sure in case... (and I've also got a thing for making the talk page clear for lurkers) Failedwizard (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I made various explanations in the edit summaries, but as requested have expanded on them above. Poule (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If/when ya'll have another go at FAC, ping me and I'd be happy to lend my support. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Animation
So there's been a request for animations here and and here as a test and a starting point I made a very rough animatation of the scanning diagram on Switch Access Scanning. If we can use this section to specify exactly what we're looking for in terms of an animation for this page, that would be great. Failedwizard (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's hard to describe, of course, so I've found a video on youtube that shows the sort of thing I was thinking about.. starts about 1:20 in. I find cross-scanning (as in the little animation above) confusing, so I'd suggest using highlighting of the border/buttons as in the youtube video. I don't know if we even need anything on the buttons if the point is to show the patterns, but maybe the alphabet would be good to show functionality. I wouldn't bother with a message window, because we can't easily show selection. Perhaps the name of the scanning pattern could be displayed at the top or bottom as each one circles through a couple of times.--Poule (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not quite following here... is there a particular piece of software you want to see in action? Failedwizard (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, not really. I was thinking of a generic example of scanning using an outline and/or highlighting scanning indications (rather than cross scanning), using an alphabet board type display. --Poule (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, let's come back to this, I think it's worth doing - certainly if you've got a set of pictures you can email me, then I can animate them in a matter of minutes (which is what happened to the above animation). I can also draw something out in photoshop but I could really do with knowing exactly what I'm drawing to avoid unnecessary back and forth (and we have the problem of avoiding none-free content) are we just thinking about a sesame street style alphabet and a cursor? Failedwizard (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, I think it would be great. I'm not thinking of a particular device, just a generic display. I've created a couple of images showing 6 pages steps in the sort in an animation I think would be good for row column scanning. One is for the row and the other is for the column. They are very rough, though, as I am very pressed for time to say. Hopefully they give you an idea of what I was thinking of, but you may have a better idea. Here they are --Poule (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll get on it - might take a couple of days, pretty busy at this end to. :) Failedwizard (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, I think it would be great. I'm not thinking of a particular device, just a generic display. I've created a couple of images showing 6 pages steps in the sort in an animation I think would be good for row column scanning. One is for the row and the other is for the column. They are very rough, though, as I am very pressed for time to say. Hopefully they give you an idea of what I was thinking of, but you may have a better idea. Here they are --Poule (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, let's come back to this, I think it's worth doing - certainly if you've got a set of pictures you can email me, then I can animate them in a matter of minutes (which is what happened to the above animation). I can also draw something out in photoshop but I could really do with knowing exactly what I'm drawing to avoid unnecessary back and forth (and we have the problem of avoiding none-free content) are we just thinking about a sesame street style alphabet and a cursor? Failedwizard (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, not really. I was thinking of a generic example of scanning using an outline and/or highlighting scanning indications (rather than cross scanning), using an alphabet board type display. --Poule (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not quite following here... is there a particular piece of software you want to see in action? Failedwizard (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Alpha-version, any and all comments welcome (I've streamlined my process somewhat at this end so it's now a lot faster for me to create/modify animations).Failedwizard (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, just checking in briefly to say that I think that it looks terrific! Just what I was imagining in my heard. I really like the "message window" and showing the building up of the word. I do have a couple of suggestions: first, how about indicating "selection" by turning the background of letter button red or some other colour? second, maybe for the demo, it would be best to avoid using letters in the first column (like T) because the row column is not so clear there.
- Would it be easy to make similar ones showing linear and circular scanning? Those would be great too. --Poule (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that the selection is marked by a change from orange to red highlighting. On my computer at least, the colour change is very, perhaps too, subtle. Maybe you could make the colours more different, or I still wonder if colouring in the whole button might indicate selection (as opposed to scanning) more clearly? Poule (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Changed the red to green (the above image is now updated) have also produced linear (below) - if you can give me a base image for circular I'll knock a draft of that up. I'd like to leave the first column issue open for a bit - just because if we are showing three different methods than I think it might help to illustrate the differences... but yeah, I'll be back in a couple of days to pick up any feedback and do another version...
- Alpha-version, any and all comments welcome (I've streamlined my process somewhat at this end so it's now a lot faster for me to create/modify animations).Failedwizard (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- They look very good to me. Congratulations. I think that now that the "selection" is clearer, the first column thing doesn't matter so much. Maybe slow down the scan a bit? It's obvious for those in the know, but might be easier if it is slower for others. I'll try and mock up a circular scan tomorrow. --Poule (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is a very rough demo of something that might do for the circular scan
--Poule (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Rate_enhancement_strategies
Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies is a little ugly and also the quoted numbers don't massively match up with Speech_generating_device#Rate_enhancement_strategies because of the different sources used - I propose making Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization a separate section, although there are definate overlaps, and also bringing in some of the sources from Speech_generating_device#Rate_enhancement_strategies to bulk out the section and match the numbers up. Anyone think this might cause issues? Failedwizard (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not sure what you mean about "ugly" but hey, whatever!! I agree that it makes sense to have the same numbers in both articles: the key is to agree on what the best sources are and go with those. I don't in theory object to making the rate-enhancement section a separate section again, but I do have some concerns about the content in the SGD article: Some of it is sourced to conference proceedings which are generally not considered the highest quality sources; Also, for the summary AAC article it is better to use more secondary sources: as an example, Dasher is a supercool project and I am personally fascinated by it. Somewhat irrelevantly, I don't know of an AAC user who actually uses it. More importantly, I am struggling to think of secondary sources about AAC that give it much/any mention. But I may be wrong, but we also need to think about weight issues. --Poule (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Cool - have made the move (and some other content has been added more-or-less inspired by the peer review, although I'm not sure the content did what I intend it to). Normally I'd support the journal over conference issue, but it's easy to miss that a lot of the SGD research is done by the computer scientists (in fact, the conference papers in the SGD article are all computer science) so they get their usual exception on this issue.* Also bear in mind that the AAC article references organisation websites [9]], and newsletters [10] (all of which I do support being in the article) - so peer reviewed conferences are possibly not the least solid sources, regardless of discipline.
. *This is a footnote because it's not aimed at Poule, who I expect is familiar with the discipline difference, but to general lurkers who might find it useful) Computer science as a field is one that has both journals and conferences, but the big conferences are often more prestigious than the small journals and vice versa - the normal justification for this is 'It's because our field moves so fast', which was a good answer in the 1970s but is looking less fabulous these days - Moshe Vardi got himself into all sorts of trouble in 2009 when he challenged the status quo [11] largely because the system is now self-perpetuating. Interested readers might like to look at [12] (which ironically, appears to be a journal publication) Failedwizard (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm happy with the general thrust of this, but not with the sourcing. Computer scientists don't get a pass on reliable sourcing rules, most especially on a potential FAC about a non-computer science topic. I'm not sure at all what the "usual exception" is that you are talking about. Can you point me a link about this exception? My review of discussions at WP:RSN suggest no such exception.
- In addition, some of these sources are quite old: if there isn't something from better sources that has been published since some of these conferences - one of them was held 2002, another in 2007, then there is also the issue of undue weight.
- Let's look for better sources to show that this information is significant and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article about AAC going to FA. --Poule (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um, I thought I had pointed you to a couple of links... "Moshe Vardi got himself into all sorts of trouble in 2009 when he challenged the status quo [13] largely because the system is now self-perpetuating. Interested readers might like to look at [14] (which ironically, appears to be a journal publication)" exception in the sense of academia by the way, not wikipedia... I'm really confused by this to be honest - I understand these to be peer-reviewed procedures of work presented to academic conferences, and I'm also pretty confused by the idea of 2007 being old... Easy way to find out is to ask the question at WP:RSN, which I'll do now.Failedwizard (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, I should have searched before asking the question - my review of discussions at WP:RSN suggests conference proceedings are discussed here, here and here and all of those mention Computer Science as an exception, or at least a case worth considering. Failedwizard (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your links: I see various editors at RSN stating that full papers presented at high quality computer science conferences with full peer review, should be considered reliable sources. At least one of the conferences you cite, CSUN, is an assistive technology conference, not a computer science one.
- At many assistive technology conferences, there is only very minimal peer review in selecting presentations for the conference. In addition, the "proceedings" are in fact a collection of the abstracts/proposals submitted 6 months to a year before the conference for the selection process, not the full papers actually presented on the day. This is the case with the CSUN ones at least.
- In contrast, having done a bit of more sleuthing I'd agree that both the Patel et al and Black et al look good. The Patel paper appears to have been published in an ATIA journal, and the Black et al one is not an abstract but the full paper, written by experts in the field (and at a computer science conference to boot). I'll fix up the citations for these.
- This Higginbotham article from the AAC journal in 2007 [15] looks like it might have useful info. I imagine there are others too, if we look. --Poule (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, I should have searched before asking the question - my review of discussions at WP:RSN suggests conference proceedings are discussed here, here and here and all of those mention Computer Science as an exception, or at least a case worth considering. Failedwizard (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, thank you so much for cleaning up the references - looks much nicer now, I think the 'are conferences reliable sources outside computer science' question is not one we are likely to agree on any time soon - In an effort to get on to more productive things (I'd like to go back to the animation above for a start) I've dropped the CSUN reference, so I think we agree that all the currently referenced conferences/journals are fine, and we can continue thinking on a sources by source basis for a while longer. While dropping the reference I also returned the text to the vocab section. The reasoning is that in the vocab section it's marked as research work, and it's clear that this is developing work for improving vocab - in the history section it implies that future AAC innovations mainly involve vocab and I think that's running a little close to Wikipedia:WEIGHT. Worth checking higginbothem though - and possibly Black had something, can't remember of the top of my head...Failedwizard (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- So clearly ([16]) that compromise didn't work out. How about, as a different compromise, the current version ([17]), which has both a small mention in history (I've made no edits to that section at all) and an overview in Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization - for all the reasons I gave in my previous talk post ([18]) and because the two paragraphs are now very different anyway - only one reference originally added to Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization appears to have made it to history... (PS - the new higginbotham and and cook references don't go anywhere in the history section, so it would be great if you could have a look at them) Failedwizard (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- As you will have noticed, in my previous edit I summarized the content you had added in the history section, and deleted other parts of it. Perhaps I should have explained more clearly why before, but I didn't. I'm sorry and here goes.
- The first sentence is not verifiable from the citation given. There nothing about bottlenecks, names etc in Higginbotham at least as far as I can see.
- I summarized the information from coming from Ashraf and Luo and Patel. All the references are still there. As I mentioned before conference proceedings are weak references due to lack of peer review, but two of these three directions are also mentioned in Higginbotham, which provides some secondary, non-conference proceeding support for the significance and notability of these new directions. I deleted the life-logging sentence, because it gives undue weight to a highly experimental approach which has been tried by one research group, with a single case subject, reported in conference proceedings and lacking secondary support for its importance.
- I moved the information to the history section because your (quite reasonable) argument above was that you didn't want the impression that all AAC innovations involved vocabulary. Well now the "future directions" part of history has been expanded, and includes hardware, software and vocabulary. I don't see that the argument holds anymore. We don't have "future research/direction" in any other sections, for example about access etc. Why would vocabulary be an exception?
- Thanks for pointing out the non-functioning links. I think I've fixed them. --Poule (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- As you will have noticed, in my previous edit I summarized the content you had added in the history section, and deleted other parts of it. Perhaps I should have explained more clearly why before, but I didn't. I'm sorry and here goes.
- So clearly ([16]) that compromise didn't work out. How about, as a different compromise, the current version ([17]), which has both a small mention in history (I've made no edits to that section at all) and an overview in Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization - for all the reasons I gave in my previous talk post ([18]) and because the two paragraphs are now very different anyway - only one reference originally added to Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Vocabulary_organization appears to have made it to history... (PS - the new higginbotham and and cook references don't go anywhere in the history section, so it would be great if you could have a look at them) Failedwizard (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, thank you so much for cleaning up the references - looks much nicer now, I think the 'are conferences reliable sources outside computer science' question is not one we are likely to agree on any time soon - In an effort to get on to more productive things (I'd like to go back to the animation above for a start) I've dropped the CSUN reference, so I think we agree that all the currently referenced conferences/journals are fine, and we can continue thinking on a sources by source basis for a while longer. While dropping the reference I also returned the text to the vocab section. The reasoning is that in the vocab section it's marked as research work, and it's clear that this is developing work for improving vocab - in the history section it implies that future AAC innovations mainly involve vocab and I think that's running a little close to Wikipedia:WEIGHT. Worth checking higginbothem though - and possibly Black had something, can't remember of the top of my head...Failedwizard (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- So regular readers of this talk page will know I tend to be very happy to let the article develop in ways that aren't my choice. However, I'm increasingly feeling that my opinions are not been taken seriously, and that it's in the best interests of the article that I start standing up for myself. With this in mind, I've put back the text in question (and have made a number of changes to address concerns raised above). I'd like us to reach a compromise, but if that's not possible I'd like us to go to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard (I'll take a revert as a yes) - that way we can get on with things like finishing the scanning examples and dealing with some aspects of the history while that's being taken care of by wikipedia's processes.
- To deal with the feedback point-by-point
- "The first sentence is not verifiable from the citation given" Yep - there was a issue there caused by the compression of the material and the wrong source had been left in - have replaced and also replaced the word 'bottleneck' for 'problem' so as to closer match the source.
- "All the references are still there" Um... the version after [19] has 172 refs, but the version before [20] had 176...
- "As I mentioned before conference proceedings are weak references due to lack of peer review," I understood that was still under discussion in this very thread, I think we disagree very fundamentally here but just to be clear on a couple of bits, *if* we are requiring peer review then we should look at the conferences in question, which are ASSETS, IUI, and SLPAT.
- "I deleted the life-logging sentence, because it gives undue weight to a highly experimental approach which has been tried by one research group, with a single case subject, reported in conference proceedings and lacking secondary support for its importance." Um, yes I would expect a research paper to be experimental... and as mentioned the conferences are peer reviewed, also I can see two separate users mentioned in the text - in any case it turns out that there is a secondary source for this one. [25], which I've added with page numbers.
- I hope this answers any concerns :) Failedwizard (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing the reference, but I don't see anything about programming names etc in the Reddington and Black article either. The article is more about timely access to social conversation, which is not really surprising because their approach is really at the utterance, interactional level.
- I don't know if you've ever been involved in reviewing articles for AAC conferences and journals? Or made to submissions to either or both? I have done all of the above, and can assure you there is absolutely no question that the peer review is much, much more rigorous in journal articles. It doesn't matter what the acceptance rate is, it doesn't matter whether things are double blind. And more to the point, arguments about all this don't matter, because per policy and guidelines, WP requires the highest quality sources available, and conference proceedings don't make the grade, though apparently a few editors would make exceptions for computing conferences. But another main factor is the undue weight: hundreds of posters and papers are given at conferences, and hundreds of single case subject studies are done, as you no doubt know. Not every conference presentation deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article; that's why the secondary support is necessary -which you have found in the Newell reference- for which congratulations. However, I couldn't find anything about Lifelogging or NLG on the page or chapter you cited, which is all about the past history of AAC. I'm guessing you meant p. 67. Am I right?
- It's fine for you to stand up for yourself, but you do need to address the arguments. Why have you returned the section to the vocabulary section, despite my comments above about why this is not appropriate. As far as I'm concerned this is the major issue, but you just did this without any comments or discussion. If you were trying to reach a compromise, why didn't you simply expand the history section, rather than reinserting your preferred version, yet again, in exactly the same place?
- I'll be honest that, personally, I'm very much inclined to give up on this whole thing. It has become very questionable whether it is actually worth the trouble. I've no doubt you are absolutely editing in good faith, but as your comment above suggests, you seem to see this as a dispute situation, where you have to fight your ground, rather than a collaborative venture. A classic case in point was when, despite my specific request to wait, you "voted" to go back to FAC on a date when you knew I wouldn't be available.[26]; there have been other situations too, which have led me to believe you would be happier if I just went away. I don't doubt you have a lot of good knowledge and ability to bring to this article, but then so do I. I don't feel that you have respected my opinion or the work that I have done, or the background knowledge and experience of AAC (and Wikipedia) that I have brought to this article. Obviously you feel the same, for which I am sorry.
- I'm going to give it one final go at something that I think is an appropriate compromise, bearing in mind the issues of article structure, sourcing, undue weight, and what I have been able to verify from new sources you have provided. Hopefully it will work for you. --Poule (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
So exactly two months ago our FA nomination was closed for lack of support. Since then we've had Cryptic finnish their review with a mood to support [27] and come though a peer review with good feeling[28]. Does anyone object to going back in? I'm happy to take on the nomination and the lion's share of the corrections, I'm aware that various other commitments are taking hold of other editors... Failedwizard (talk)
- I think we need to fix up various things first. For example:
- I said I was going to do various things to respond to the 2 peer reviews: e.g briefly expand CP, add brief explanations for Light's Purposes, check re the "some" comments for multicultural groups and other issues, and look into the multi-handicapped literature. I should be able to get to this in the next day or two.
- We should also do the alt text: I seem to remember you said you would have a go at this, Failedwizard.
- Once we have done this, I would think we should be good to go. --Poule (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Poule... okay, so we wait a little longer, I must be having a really confused day - I've got no memory of claiming alt text (I think it's a great idea, I've just got no experience of doing it) and I'm not entirely sure about the second point - I don't remember CP being mentioned at all - is there a conversation happening somewhere else I've missed? Failedwizard (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I took this as an indication that you would a go at the alt-text. Here is where Cryptic says that the CP section is a bit skimpy.[29]. You added a definition, I believe, which was a good start, and I said I would do a bit more. --Poule (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, looks like we've both made general assumptions here - I asked a shall-I-do-it? question a couple of months back that you (I think, from the edit above) took as a I'll-do-it. and I thought we'd addressed all cryptic's comments - we live and learn... :) Failedwizard (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just checking in to apologize for my failure to complete my part of this. I've been having some very time consuming real life issues which needed my full attention. I won't be able to get back to this for one more week, after which I promise to do all the bits and bobs I have in mind, and then I think we will be good to go. Poule (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, looks like we've both made general assumptions here - I asked a shall-I-do-it? question a couple of months back that you (I think, from the edit above) took as a I'll-do-it. and I thought we'd addressed all cryptic's comments - we live and learn... :) Failedwizard (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I took this as an indication that you would a go at the alt-text. Here is where Cryptic says that the CP section is a bit skimpy.[29]. You added a definition, I believe, which was a good start, and I said I would do a bit more. --Poule (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Poule... okay, so we wait a little longer, I must be having a really confused day - I've got no memory of claiming alt text (I think it's a great idea, I've just got no experience of doing it) and I'm not entirely sure about the second point - I don't remember CP being mentioned at all - is there a conversation happening somewhere else I've missed? Failedwizard (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)