Augmentative and alternative communication is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
The prose is generally excellent. I have made minor grammatical and stylistic changes where appropriate. But there are still a few places where "jargony" terms are used that are not defined, and leave an uninitiated reader confused. Can you either define these or reword? Below are the examples I found, emphasis mine.
"Since the 1990s, there has been an increase in in-class and natural education techniques, as opposed to traditional pull-out methods"
"the Amer-Ind code is based on American Indian Hand Talk" (Does the latter refer to Plains Indian Sign Language?)
"PECS" is mentioned in the "Effect on speech" section. It was defined above, far up in the article, but many readers would benefit from PECS being redefined, as it is in the "Autism" section below.
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.
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
¿¡Estas krimpiendo!?
Resolved
"Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is an umbrella term" I suggest linking "umbrella term", perhaps to Wiktionary. Non-native speakers of English may not readily understand this idiom.
Done. It turns out there is a WP article which saves me from having to figure out how to link to Wikidictionary within an article. Poule (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern use of AAC began in the 1950s with systems for users who had lost the use of speech following surgical procedures." I'm not a fan of the use of "users" here. People who employ AAC should not be referred to as a "user" until after they have already started using it. I suggest replacing "users" with "those" or "people" or "patients".
Done. Replaced with "those". FYI Users/consumers is the typical terminology; the term "patients" implies ill-health, which doesn't go down well and thus the term tends not used except in very hospital based settings.Poule (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of the lead, it is not clear what part(s) of the world are being referred to. Surely it is not the case that every society felt compelled to include the disabled.
I am of the opinion that the lead (and perhaps the rest of the article) would benefit from having more links. I will add some as I go, but someone should make a thorough run-through to find more.
"range from low to high technology" This phrase does not convey any useful information whatsoever, unless the reader magically already knows the intended meanings of "low technology" and "high technology". Does "low technology" mean pencils or portable computers? Does "high technology" mean speech synthesis software or neural implants? I certainly have no idea. I suggest deleting this phrase; the subsequent clause conveys all of the necessary information.
"... gestures, hand signals..." I'm curious: what is the difference between a gesture and a hand signal?
Done(ish) Um, I think the original reasoning was that the person making the gesture may not be able to move their hands (noding, nose-pointing, ect), but I quite take the point, I've removed 'hand signals' for now - I'd like to make sure that Poule has no objection< though... there might be an elegant solution....Failedwizard (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the selection made depends on the needs and capabilities of the user" and "The method of accessing the communication device depends on the user's skills and abilities" and "An evaluation of a user's abilities and requirements is necessary to match a user with the most appropriate AAC approaches" seem to be redundant. We get the point: some stuff works for some people, other stuff works for other people. Not so difficult a concept that it needs to be iterated thrice.
I've done a fairly major reword on each of these (again I'd like one of my conominators to give a sanity check) but I think it might cover the concern.Failedwizard (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Studies show that AAC use does not impede the development of speech, and may even result in a modest increase in speech production. Adult AAC users who have used AAC since childhood may have poor literacy and vocational outcomes, but report satisfying relationships, and pleasurable and interesting life activities." This wee snippet of text that is so arrogant as to proclaim itself an entire paragraph seems to be a bit promotional. If you want to include this kind of information in the lead, you have to go all the way and present a solid overview of how society perceives AAC users.
I can understand why all ya'll are passionate about this topic, but it's important to give a neutral presentation, and this snippet really doesn't do a good job of that. It would be nice to say that the world of AAC is all sunshine and happiness, but the under-representation of AAC users in the workforce is a pretty hefty fly in the ointment. Here's one possible rephrasing that is, in my eyes, a bit more balanced: "Users who have grown up with AAC typically have poor literacy and are unlikely to find employment, though they often report an otherwise satisfactory quality of life." Not perfect, but I'm sure you get the idea. --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think I get you now. How about 'Users who have grown up with AAC report satisfying relationships and life activities; however they may have poor literacy and are unlikely to be in employment.'? Failedwizard (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the inclusion and independence of those with disabilities" I'm a bit confused. Inclusion and independence are, in some ways, antonymous. What exactly does "independence" mean in this context? Perhaps "rehabilitation" would be a better choice...? Not really sure here.
I've tried to clarify using some linking and rewording. Inclusion refers to being included and involved in society. Independence refers to being autonomous; not living in hospitals, for example, but in the community in apartments, if possible by themselves. They are actually two sides of the same coin in disability-speak, so it is very helpful to get an outside opinion on these things.Poule (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a difficult call- independence is the term used in the reliable sources, and it includes much more than self-reliance; many with disabilities are not able to be "self-reliant" for example, but can be given greater opportunity to live and make decisions more autonomously. Here's one of the sources for example "This new approach emphasized the need for cognitively impaired individuals to learn and develop skills that would lead to increased independence and a lifestyle more closely resembling that of nondisabled peers." I'm going to try and again to address the concerns and remain close to the sources.--Poule (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hot damn, I like what I see! "developing the skills required for independence" makes it much clearer what the mystery word means in this context. I'm happy with this if the other noms are. --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Those benefiting from AAC include individuals with a variety of congenital conditions" A wee bit promotional. I'd prefer to swap out "benefiting from" for "who make use of".
"non-speech systems were their only formal means of communication" What does "formal" mean in this context? I think this sentence would work just fine without this word.
I am somewhat surprised that the second paragraph of Unaided AAC does not mention the fact that signed languages are much more precise and comprehensive than mere gestures alone. I think the inclusion of such a statement would nicely counterbalance the bit about signed languages being non-transparent.
"In many cases, rate enhancement techniques such as codes or specific organization of symbols are used to speed up the generation of messages." I have no idea what this sentence means.
I've edited to 'In many cases the process of constructing messages can be slow and so rate enhancement techniques are used to speed up the generation of messages.' which I think is much clearer at the expense of some detail - does that sound a bit better? Failedwizard (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better. The problem now is that the jargon-heavy phrase "rate enhancement technique" is thrown out there without any solid clues as to what it means. My understanding of the new sentence is essentially "creating messages can be slow, so people try to make it faster." This, of course, is just a special case of the axiom "stuff sucks, so people try to make it not suck." As this is a fairly self-evident principle in most fields, I think it may be best to simply delete this sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the lead needs to summarize the article, and we have a whole section, with several sub-sections describing the methods that people use to speed up communication. Just saying that people are slow doesn't really do the job properly; I'll try another version that hopefully will address everybody's concerns. Poule (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, Poule. I hadn't noticed the section on rate enhancement techniques. Still, I am completely mystified as to the meaning of "codes" and "specific organization of symbols". The former can mean dozens of different things depending on the context; the latter is a jargon-heavy phrase that is unlikely to convey any meaning to an outsider. --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Prevalence data varies, but typically between 0.1 to 1.5% of the population" Varies how? Could be age, time, location, or economic class. Population of what? Could be the US, English speakers, the world, or adults.
In my experience it varies between study - highly political in certain places - but I'd like to check Poule's take on this, it's likely to be one where we have a difference of opinion. Failedwizard (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of the above, though not economic class, and little done in developing countries. I'll add a bit to clarify, but it is really a morass of multiple studies studying slightly different populations (age, type of disability). I don't think it is really necessary to get into the details since the survey writers conclude "the wide variations found in these studies are probably more due to the definitions and sampling techniques than to actually differences in prevalence rates."Poule (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On static speech generating devices, symbols are in fixed positions on a paper overlay..." This is the first instance of "static" in the article, and I'm not entirely sure if it is a specific class of high-tech aids, or if it refers to low-tech thingies.
"these include Blissymbols, which possesses linguistic characteristics such as grammatical indicators, and the more iconic Picture Communication Symbols (PCS) which does not." Two things that concern me here. First, the subject-verb disagreement: "Blissymbols" and "Picture Communication Symbols" are plural, but "possesses" and "does not" are singular. Second, this phrasing seems to think that Blissymbols are better than PCS. If the sources indicate that the inclusion of linguistic characteristics is a reason to favor Blissymbols, that should be stated explicitly. If you are instead just trying to make a general comparison, the phrasing could be tweaked to be a bit more neutral.
I've fixed the plural (apologies, should *really* have seen that earlier) - the sentence it's self was quite difficult to get consensus on (it's an amazing percentage of the talk) so I'd like to leave it as alone if you are just mentioning it in passing, but happy to change if you really would like it changed. Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"including understanding of symbols, memory etc." Eek! I'm not a fan of "etc." First, it is not always clear what the other items in the list would be. Second, there are much nicer ways to phrase this: "including understanding of symbols, memory, and various other thingamabobs" or whatever.
Sentence is now 'The choice of symbols and aspects of their presentation, such as size and background, depends on an individual's preferences as well as their linguistic, visual, and cognitive skills.'
"It was not until the 1980s that AAC began to emerge as an area in its own right." Area of what? Could be research, medicine, etc.
I've changed it to field. As the article says in the history section, many things came together including more research, professional specialization and accreditation, formation of international and national associations etc. I don't think we need to go into details in the lead. --Poule (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"an alternative pointer, such as eye gaze, a head stick, head or eye-controlled mouse" Does the last bit mean "head-controlled or eye-controlled mouse"? If so, then there should technically be a hyphen tacked onto "head". Normally I don't really care about this convention, but in this case I think it helps to remove some abiguity.
"vocabulary items organized in these grid formats by spoken word order, frequency of usage or category." It seems to me like there are one or more words missing from this sentence. Perhaps "vocabulary items [are often] organized in these grid formats by spoken word order, frequency of usage or category."
"Visual scene displays represent a different method of organizing and presenting symbols" Erm, not really. They don't "represent" a different method, they "are" a different method. Unless of course I'm misunderstanding this...?
I am of the opinion that the first paragraph of Assessment and system implementation should be split up. It is quite massive in size and it touches on a number of different subtopics.
What does the Christy Brown quote have to do with assessment or system implementation? It's certainly a compelling passage, but I don't understand what it's doing in this section.
We had some chat about where to put the quotes, and my understanding is that both are about *starting* to use AAC. If you've got a recommendation for a better place, we're certainly attentive, we're all probably a bit close to the article to know exactly where to put it... Failedwizard (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"For members of some cultural groups the presence of an AAC device increases the visibility of disability and is thus viewed as stigmatizing." This leaves me wondering: what happens to those people? Do they try to find non-visible AAC devices, or just shun the methods altogether?
It's worth noting here that it may not be the user who views the devices this way, but the families and carers, and this conversation can go to very dark places :( From a wikipedia point of view, I"m not sure we'll be able to find good sources to answer your question, groups that don't like AAC (for any reason) arn't all that friendly to AAC researchers... :( I may well we wrong though...Failedwizard (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious: are the methods described in "Prediction" similar to the methods used by search engines (particularly Google)? If ya'll can find a reliable source that says this, I think it would be a helpful addition to this wee little section.
The autocomplete functionality was what I had in mind, yes. Like when you type in "How many e" and it automagically suggests "How many eggs does a woman have?", to which the answer is obviously 7. --Cryptic C62 · Talk18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I'm going to stray into OR a second here for clarity, hope you don't mind - *in my experience* prediction is much more like you would get on an iphone keyboard... ('it looks like you are typing 'necessary', would you like to complete that'?) than at the phrase level. Phrase level systems certainly exist - I think [Speech_generating_device#cite_note-demp-31] is a version like you've described (as in I think that's what the reference is doing) but that's at the 'interesting research' end rather than the 'this is what everybody does' end. Over a beer we can have a really fun conversation about why the speed of generation affects the grammar used and hence how that affects phrasal prediction, and why there are serious research issues that prevent really good investigation of this on large sets of data and so on. So yeah, the point is, I don't have an handy reference that supports the analogy (one of the other editors might), but the analogy isn't that far off... if it helps - I plan to make (electronic) prediction a big part of [Speech_generating_device] as my next project. Failedwizard (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Four social purposes of communicative interaction have been identified: the expression of needs and wants, the transfer of information, social closeness, and social etiquette." I really don't understand this list. Doesn't all communication qualify as the transfer of information? What does "social closeness" mean? I had been under the impression that "social etiquette" referred to a set of guidelines on how to act in certain situations, not a reason to communicate.
So there is transfer of information in the sense of 'There is some post for you', and there is social closeness in the sense of telling a joke - obviously at a very basic level you have to transfer information to tell the joke, but that's not the *purpose* of the communication. Not sure what (sourced) changes can be made here, could you expand a bit more? Failedwizard (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's something I would like to know: Is this classification scheme described in just one source or is is accepted throughout the field? In the former case, I don't think it should be included at all, or at least described in such a definitive manner. In the latter case, there must surely exist some more thorough explanation of the different categories somewhere. I realize the category names will probably make sense to someone familiar with the literature, but they are very opaque to an outsider. It just reads as "here are four jargon phrases that you must now memorize: snargits, hargits, blargits, and potato." --Cryptic C62 · Talk18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no competing classification, and if it's in B&M or light it's generally accepted by the field (rightly or wrongly) I'd quite enjoy having some examples and I think that would help - I'm bit out of my deaph on when a clarifying example of a principle needs to be sourced and when it doesn't (I'm assuming that examples in maths, for example, don't have to be sourced examples, but do have to be exemplary examples of sourced principles in this example), might turn this over to my learned colleagues... but would you be happy with a set of examples? Failedwizard (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Speech subsection of Outcomes focus on those individuals who use AAC as a temporary measure and then learn to speak later? Or perhaps those who attempt to learn both simultaneously? Either way, it doesn't answer the burning question: how many AAC users actually do go on to learn how to speak?
Changed to 'Several reviews have found that the using AAC does not impede the development of speech in individuals with autism or developmental disabilities, and in fact may result in modest gains being observed.' The burning question is, as they say, 'an open research question' - problem is that we can't really satisfactorily answer *any* question that starts 'How Many' in the field. It's pretty depressing actually :( Failedwizard (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Language and literacy, it is not clear if "literacy" refers specifically to the ability to read normal writing or more broadly to the ability to interpret visually encoded information. I assume the first case, but then I don't really understand the purpose of the first two sentences. Do we really need to explain the importance of language and literacy?
Done. "Literacy" used as reading of normal writing, I've rearranged the paragraph - the sentences haven't quite gone, but they've moved and had their meaning changed...I think that's sorted it but let me know Failedwizard (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the original format. The revision made by Failedwizard confused literacy with language; these are two separate things. Literacy is the ability to read and to write: being able to spell opens all possible words in a specific language to an individual, as well as other opportunities. Language refers to vocabulary, syntax, morphology etc. --Poule (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Most children in this category do not achieve literacy skills beyond a second grade level." Second grade in which education system? Could be US, UK, etc. Surely not every country's education system has the same literacy expectations of their second-graders. Perhaps an age or age range would be more appropriate.
Done. Was US, I've changed the text to be '7-8' and left a comment for future editors (would be an interesting to have a template that automatically converted. Failedwizard (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Many people with cerebral palsy would not benefit from AAC," Why not? This section is a bit skimpy, and this would be a good opportunity to beef it up a bit.
Changed to 'dysarthria often occurs with Cerebral palsy and may require AAC support for communication.' the meaning was unclear, though I think the new sentance is pretty clunky and could do with a polish. To answer the other part - the thing here is that, for a whole bunch of reasons, the stuff that we would write about users with CP, we've already written in the general case... This is very difficult to phrase but both the industry and the research community are kind of geared up to (and it's not a position I personally find comfortable) assume CP as the 'typical' case...
Well, the other subsections give a bit of explanation about the nature of the condition, so perhaps we could do that here too. It would certainly be helpful to give a bit of background info about dysarthia, as the lay reader is unlikely to be familiar with that term. --Cryptic C62 · Talk17:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that this should be expanded, and in fact have suggested this in the past. I will try and do so shortly. --Poule (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Autism is a disorder distinguished by qualitative impairments" What is a "qualitative impairment"? My instinct is to try to contrast this with "quantitative impairment", but I'm not sure what that would mean either, apart from the rare case of missing 3 organs.
Yeah, that's not great is it... I've changed to 'Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behaviour', which is the first sentence of the autism article. Failedwizard (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change is fine, but so was qualitative impairments: for example in autism it is not necessarily the quantity of communication that is impaired, but its quality, its character. It is a common enough phrase in the medical and psychological literature.--Poule (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Existing functional communication skills, such as joint attention, predict better use of AAC." I'm not really sure what the last part of this means. Is this trying to say that there is a correlation between existing functional communication skills and the effective use of AAC?
I've removed the replacement. The source actually says that joint attention seem to be a more important factor than visuo spatial skills, and points out a study where joint attention did predict better AAC use. But since both are in an "unanswered questions" section, I think neither of them should be included. --Poule (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A study that compared the use of a speech generating device to a picture exchange system found that both were plausible options for children with autism" The use of "plausible" here suggests that neither of these systems actually exist yet, or that they are not widely used outside the context of research studies. Is this true?
I've replaced "plausible" with "reasonable" - the confusion I think comes from the issue that it's impossible to say (of any assertive technology, not just AAC) "Technology X will fix problem Y of disability Z", because there are so many other factors that massively influence the result - for example, getting control groups is such a difficult proposition that many researchers test new approaches with fully able subjects just so they have enough people (leads me back into the talk earlier about CP - because CP (and autism) are *relatively* common/consistent - they are easier to draw academic results from... anyway I keep giving answers that are far to long so shall stop. Failedwizard (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Difficulties with memory and new learning may influence AAC choices" How is "new learning" different from "learning"?
"Aphasia is the result of an impairment to the brain's language centres ... and can cause severe, chronic language impairment." So aphasia is an impairment that causes an impairment? Ideally I would love to see a version of this that does not repeat the word twice in the same sentence.
"In the early stages, AAC may consist of using an alphabet board to cue the listener to the first letter of the word being spoken, and may [be] used with those less familiar with the individual." Missing word?
"writing-based systems are preferred as they allow unlimited expressive communication." I'm not a fan of "unlimited expressive communication", as this is somewhat ambiguous. What limits are removed when using writing systems? Vocabulary is the first that comes to mind, but there could be others as well.
Done, changed to 'ince cognition and vision are typically unaffected in ALS, writing-based systems are preferred as they allow much less limited forms of expressive communication compared to say icons.' Failedwizard (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Much less limited" isn't in the source and icons tends to have a specific (Minspeak) meaning in AAC, so best to use another term. If you have access to spelling, then your ability to communicate in a particular language is not limited at all. I've reworked again to address the original issue. --Poule (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"small wallets with photographs" Is the adjective "small" necessary? In other words, are these wallets smaller than normal wallets? I hadn't realized that there was much variance in the size of wallets.
Done. The source (in my reading of it) uses wallet almost interchangably to memory book, and the sentence made a little less sense after reading thought the source so have reworded Failedwizard (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition, training designed to teach individuals with dementia to use such memory aids was maintained four months after intervention." The training was maintained for four months? Or the memory aids remained effective after four months?
I going to restore it with a modification to addres the issue, as I agree the sentence was very unclear. In a treatment study, whether there is maintenance/carryover of a treatment effect is a key finding. Most especially in a progressive memory disease where one would be very concerned that there could be a return to baseline when intervention ceases.--Poule (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"AAC can trace its roots" No it can't. Only personified trees can do this. In general, metaphors such as this should be avoided, as their meaning may not be clear to non-native speakers of English.
Thanks. I agree that the sentence needed modifying, and have done so; however, I'd say "tracing roots" is a fairly common phrase, one we shouldn't have to avoid: we are not simple wikipedia after all- and I notice that even simple wikipedia uses the phrase![1]--Poule (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The modern era began in the 1950s in Europe and North America, spurred by societal factors such as an increased awareness of individuals with communication and other disabilities, and a developing commitment, often backed by legislation and funding, to develop their education, independence and rights." Lots of problems here. Overall, this is a rather unwieldy sentence in terms of length and number of ideas introduced. Does "modern era" refer to AAC or society in general? A developing commitment to develop...? A commitment by whom? Funding from whom? I think this could be presented a lot more clearly by splitting it up into a few sentences and filling in more of the details.
I've clarified the modern era (of AAC), that these are examples of the societal/govermental changes/commitments, divided the sentence and changing developing to growing. --Poule (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Since Parkinson's disease is associated with reduced range and speed of movement, a small-sized board may be preferred." How small is small? Are we talking pocket-sized or clipboard-sized?
Done. The reference goes with 'Smaller', I've reworded to 'In users that have reduced range and speed of movement, a smaller than usual selection display may be preferred.' to both cover your comment and because the orginal statement was futher from the source than I would like... Failedwizard (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, this doesn't really fix the problem so much as put it somewhere else. The question now is: How large is a normal-sized board? The image I have in my head is that a normal board would be roughly a 3 foot by a 4 foot rectangle; a "smaller than usual" board would be the size of a clipboard. Of course, I have no idea if these are actually correct. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
Not covered in that particular reference (that I can see, right at this moment), but I'm happy to go digging - on the other hand I'd be happier if the sentence wasn't there at all (I think it's un:due weight to a particular symptom and a particular way of dealing with that symptom), would you be okay with dropping it? Failedwizard (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you guys, particularly since you're much more familiar with the literature than I am. I certainly would not be opposed to its removal, as it doesn't seem to be an enormously crucial fact. Poule? --Cryptic C62 · Talk23:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep it. After all, we are talking about the difference in AAC between the different disorders, and the fact is that a feature of PD is that those with it have a reduced range of motion and smaller is often a desirable feature of their communication devices/boards (sometimes a bit unexpectedly given the tremor.) I don't see an argument for undue weight. BTW, it would be most, most unusual to have a display of 3-4 feet. Maximum I've ever seen is about 2 by 2 feet, but normally we are talking about about letter size. Smaller, for PD clients, might be half that, or less. But this is all my personal experience, and no use. I think what Failedwizard changed it to is fine.[User:Poule|Poule]] (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Factors affecting AAC use in Parkinson's disease include motor deficits and cognitive changes, including lack of insight into the extent of their communication difficulties" Does "lack of insight" refer to a deficit in our collective body of knowledge, or each user's own inability to assess their communication difficulties?
Done. The relevent line in the source is [2] 'although individuals with PD themselves may be unaware of problems with spoken communication.' - I've changed to 'significantly the users may be unaware of their problems with spoken communication.' Failedwizard (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me how this clause relates to the previous one. My proposed change is "unlike most AAC users, those afflicted with Parkinson's disease are often unaware of their problems with spoken communication." Is this accurate? --Cryptic C62 · Talk21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'unlike most AAC users' is *probably* true, but it's not as straightforward as you might think - I'd be utterly fine with the second part if you are. Failedwizard (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I've made more changes. The lack of insight is a specific example of the cognitive changes, one that can directly affect AAC use, so the two sentences need to be connected. --Poule (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The approach was typically only employed after traditional speech therapy had failed" Which approach?
AAC- the subject of the previous sentence, and the section and article. Stylistic, I would rather avoid repeating AAC over and over again. --Poule (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a few, such as the HandiVoice, had voice output." Artificial or recorded voice output?
It was synthesized speech with the Handivoice, but since other devices are involved I think the general term is best. --Poule (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"in 1981, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association published a position paper regarding AAC as a field of practice for speech-language pathologists." Erm, what exactly is the purpose of this sentence? If "regarding" were replaced with "advocating", I would see why this would be an important trivium, but as it stands the purpose is not clear to me.
I think the point is that a professional organization determined that it was part of their professional role, and thus lent respectability and importance to the topic. Think of it as in "In 2014, the American Association of Doctors published a position paper on homeopathy as a field of practice for doctors." It is actually more than "advocating"; it is a defacto acceptance that using homeopathy is part of a doctor's job/role. I've reworked things a bit, based on your comments --Poule (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"sign language increased in status and use" What does "status" mean here? My first instinct would be "popularity", but that would be redundant with the rest of the sentence.
Status really is the right word: I exagerrate somewhat, but sign language went from being something only "failures" of the oral method used to being recognized as an actual language and the object of deaf pride. Oliver Sachs' book Seeing Voices is a a very fascinating account of some of the history of this, if you are interested. --Poule (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is interesting, but I don't think that many readers would correctly infer this rather literal meaning of "status". How about replacing "status and use" with "popularity and acceptance"? I feel that that gives essentially the same meaning as what you are describing.
"The development of the Amer-Ind hand signals opened the field to AAC techniques specifically for an adult clientele." The use of "clientele" sugests that AAC is a product or service. I guess in some ways it could be considered as such, but this is the first instance of any phrasing that suggests this; as such, it seems out of place. Perhaps "an adult clientele" -> "adult users" would be better?
I don't mind changing it, but I also think clientele is fine too; it is the term used in the source as well. Much has changed since people with disabibilities were called patients, and people who work in AAC are in fact often called service providers. But whatever.--Poule (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the word itself, it just seems odd that this is the only spot in the article (that I can remember) in which AAC users are described this way. A house divided against itself, and all that, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk02:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"From the 1980s, improvements in technology led to a greatly increased number, range, and performance of commercially available communication devices," Not sure what "range" means here. Perhaps "variety" or "market penetration"?
"The first commercially available dynamic screen speech generating devices were developed in the 1990s and synthesized speech in more languages became available." This sentence presents two seemingly unrelated ideas: commercially available dynamic screen devices, and availability of more languages.
"communication devices can be accessed using eye-tracking systems, can perform as a computer for word-processing and internet use and as an environmental control device for independent access of TV, radio, telephone etc" Err, I don't really know what to say about this sentence. It looks like someone thought to themselves "I'll just throw all the relevant words in there and hope that grammar happens."
"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.
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 · Talk02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fabulous - I'll just pop to the office to fetch the relevent sources... in the meantime, can I just check that these edits [3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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...
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)[reply]
Here is a very rough demo of something that might do for the circular scan
Not had a chance to get to the circular scanning yet - been distracted by a GA - but I did reload the deleted image and pop both test images into the Switch_access_scanning article for the time being...
So I struggled slightly with this one - not sure if I should be showing selection of things or just the movement of the 'cursor' - any and all feedback welcome - once we've happy with the images we should probably start working out where to put them...
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)[reply]
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 [4]], and newsletters [5] (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 [6] largely because the system is now self-perpetuating. Interested readers might like to look at [7] (which ironically, appears to be a journal publication) Failedwizard (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [8] largely because the system is now self-perpetuating. Interested readers might like to look at [9] (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [10] looks like it might have useful info. I imagine there are others too, if we look. --Poule (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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 [14] has 172 refs, but the version before [15] 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. [20], which I've added with page numbers.
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 peer-reviewing articles for 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 version in the history section, where much of the information already was, including 3 of the conference references you have offered, 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.[21]; 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)[reply]
Hey, I notice you've been using some of the sources under dispute in the history section, I'm aware that's against your philosophy and I appreciate that. However I do think that we've reached a stage of circular arguments, and in order that we can continue our development of the article we should probably hive this off someone where we can get other editor input - I'll put as balanced a viewpoint as I can on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, as a gesture of good faith I'll leave the paragraph out while that rumbles on, but If I had to express my philosophy on this in a sentence it would be that I think that readers who come to the article looking for information on the history/outcomes/symbols/Vocabulary of AAC should be able to find all the information they need in the history/outcomes/symbols/Vocabulary section without having to hunt though the whole article, even if that does involve a small amount of repeated content. Failedwizard (talk)
For the record, I don't think your description of this dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard is accurate. This is not about conference proceedings but rather about your insistence on keeping a not particularly well-written paragraph with verifiability and undue weight problems, in one particular position in the article. [22][23][24][25]
Let's look at the history of this. The article's peer reviewer suggested the history section be expanded with some information about future directions. We both agreed with the suggestion and you placed some preliminary material in the vocabulary organization section as a temporary measure (Your words: "I don't think its the history section is ready for it yet so it's waiting for it's time in the vocab section"[26]). See also [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication&diff=460652636&oldid=460647171] Yet when I do the research to expand the history section to cover the topic of future directions/research in a broader fashion - including vocabulary- you simply continue to reinsert the original material back in the vocabulary organization section. Right from the start I included 4 of the 6 sources you proposed. Over time, I did the research to find secondary sources (and you found one) to back up some of the weaker conference sources you provided, and finally included a fifth of the 6 references and solved the undue weight problem I had pointed out about using unsupported conference proceedings[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augmentative_and_alternative_communication&action=historysubmit&diff=465128957&oldid=464298978][27][28]. Instead of thanks, it is a revert back to your preferred version in the vocabulary organization section. Other miscommunication:
You agree to delete the CSUN conference proceedings, but remove only one of two.
You don't appear to have even examined what I had done, because you twice claim[29][30] that I have deleted all but one of the references you added (see above).
You admit to having included the wrong citation for a particular sentence (mistakes like that happen quite easily, so no problem)[31] but then replace one citation with material doesn't contain the material either.[32]
But most importantly, you don't or can't explain why now you think this particular material needs to duplicated and should stay in the vocabulary organization section when you originally stated it was a temporary measure. You've argued above that people should be able to find everything they want to know about "the history/outcomes/symbols/Vocabulary of AAC" in that section. Well, the current "vocabulary organization" section doesn't actually contain all information available about the history/outcomes/symbols/vocabulary. It has information about vocabulary organization. And why on earth should this one section cover future directions/research, but not any other? For example, what about the "access", "high tech" sections? I just don't think the argument makes any sense. But what I notice, troublingly, is that the section you wish to retain is about British-based research. The Good Article reviewer to Speech generating devices twice noted the preponderance of British-based material in that article (even going so far as to mention it as a POV problem).[33][34]. This is amplified by problems with factual accuracy when edits to the SGD article claimed that the first SGD was British, which was simply incorrect.[35]
Failedwizard, you've got many skills and have done lots of good here at Wikipedia. I truly appreciate all the time and trouble you've taken, and the push you've given to the development of several of these articles. We all have our faults and make mistakes, and none of those that you or I have made have been serious. I appreciate that you have not reinserted the section yet again. --Poule (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I think we should now wait for other editor's opinions - for reference to other readers - in the paragraph in question it is true that of the five references, three are from the UK and only two are from the US. It may way be the case that I'm more likely to have run across UK-based research (I live in the UK), but I feel I'm editing from a global perspective.Failedwizard (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For more of an update - this is the response from the reliable sources people: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences - in short they weren't massively impressed but they also don't raise any objections to either academic conferences in general, or the disputed three here. I'm going to take some more advice at DRN and work out a sensible next move. I'd like to reopen the discussion here and see if anything has changed. How are we feeling about the disputed paragraph at the moment? Failedwizard (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I haven't changed my opinion at all, because as noted above, the sourcing issues were never the major problem. I think you summarize the results of the RSN well: they weren't particularly supportive about the use of academic conferences, but in any case as you are aware, two of the three conference proceedings you inquired about (and one you did not, CSUN) are used in the article already. With secondary sources to back them up, I didn't have any problems with them. The one not used - Black et al.- is the "Workshop" proceeding which was particularly questioned, and for whose content I could not find secondary support. All to say, my primary issues about your paragraph - listed above- remain the same, and have not been addressed. In fact, the RSN responses, quite incidentally, support several of the concerns I have.Poule (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 [36] and come though a peer review with good feeling[37]. 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.
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)[reply]
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.[38]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
