Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Augmentative and alternative communication/archive1

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62

• "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)
• "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)
• 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.
  • Yes, you are correct. Thank you. Poule (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• 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.
  • I've added some to the lead and will check through the rest of the article too. Poule (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• "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.
  • Done, it's gone. Failedwizard (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• "... 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)
  • Signal has a specific meaning different from gesture, but I think it is fine just to delete it.Poule (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• "adapted mice" Trained rodents or modified computer hardware? A link would be helpful.
  • Done, not the rodent :) Failedwizard (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Squeak! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• "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.
  • Done. Poule (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
• "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.
  • Well it's not a paragraph on its own any more, and I've done some rewording... this might be one for the talk page... :/ Failedwizard (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • 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 · Talk 03:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • I like. Subtle changes in phrasing can indeed go a long way towards making a sentence sound more neutral. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• "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)
    • Definitely better, but I still think that "independence" could be misinterpreted. How about "self-reliance" instead? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Changed to self-reliance in the lead, and also reworded a few other places where the meaning of independence is not clear from the text. Failedwizard (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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 · Talk 03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I also like this. Failedwizard (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• "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".
  • Done Failedwizard (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• "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.
  • Done Failedwizard (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• 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.
  • I've added something to the start. Poule (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• "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)
    • 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 · Talk 03:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • It's gone, and it this instance I've replaced it with a fact about speaking rates from the rate enhancement section, how does that look? Failedwizard (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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 · Talk 03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Okay, I see what you mean. I've made some changes to address your concerns.Poule (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• "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)
    • 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)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)