Re: [vwrap] [wvrap] Simulation consistency

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

It's hard to consider deaf and blind people as only theoritically deaf 
and theoretically blind. The differences between sight & sound is beyond 
theory.

Consider that many have tried to falsify "learning styles" or other 
nature of such visual, auditory, kinetic, and kinesthetic, and believed 
they have debunked such issues, only makes it official science. Science 
is based on falsifiable claims and not unfalsifiable claims. Every 
scientist either goes through such evil or checks out with their PhD 
(the universities' gamble/gambits), as their claims are philosophy until 
otherwise official. Those are the obvious limits of science.

Usual "learning styles" only relate to the first 20 years (applied 
limits), and then after that more official science backs up the cases. 
It's just not easy to debunk real world experiences outside of 
educational institutions. Either people are born as experts as beings 
that learn the same way, or we are all learn different. Neither have 
been proven, and the link you gave doesn't debunk either. There are 
"strength" groups defined, however. By the tried and proven tests 
(psychology) that 60% auditory is very definitive. Given that majority 
rules usually means auditory wins@>50%, its hard for any other 
"strength" group to make their case. That's enough signifigant enough to 
remain useful weight in various cases in court where it is mainly based 
on "hearings". Court only gives interpreters to those that are obvious 
in need of them. Any effort to debunk these differences only make it 
harder for those that are not so obviously different from "hearing" 
enabled. Given that courts still haven't changed, it remains that 'hard 
to draw such connections' even in such cases.

Otherwise, more back on track, VWs have helped in many areas in regards 
to accessibilities. I just hate to detail every reason and make 
examples. Carefully, hope...

Fleep Tuque wrote:
> On a purely academic side note, the theory of "learning styles" has 
> been disputed and some would even say debunked. �Current research 
> shows that depending upon the context and activity we're involved with 
> and our specific physical abilities, people generally all learn in 
> visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc. ways. �Unfortunately the website 
> for the primary journal article I wanted to reference appears to be 
> down at the moment, but 
> see�http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to-/49497/�for 
> a pretty good explanation. �
>
> I admit that I don't know enough VWRAP history to fully understand the 
> crux of this debate, but�I'm having a hard time drawing the connection 
> between criticism of how a term term like "Agent Domain" has been/is 
> being used and how that relates to accessibility issues. �I hope 
> moving forward we're all careful about being critical of ideas versus 
> criticizing a person's abilities and perhaps we can dial back the 
> rhetoric a bit to keep the discussion focused and positive.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> - Chris/Fleep
>
>
> Chris M. Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque)
> Project Manager, UC Second Life�
> Second Life Ambassador, Ohio Learning Network�
> UCit Instructional & Research Computing
> University of Cincinnati�
> 406E Zimmer Hall
> PO Box 210088
> Cincinnati, OH 45221-0088
> [phone]
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> UC Second Life: � http://homepages.uc.edu/secondlife
> OLN Second Life: http://www.oln.org/emerging_technologies/emtech.php
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     As stated, "it didn't happen." The concepts and ideas are still
>     iconic natured and useful as such. It's iconic usefulness as like
>     that of infinite tense that all English teachers want their
>     students to write in & with figure-of-speech, its the wrong way.
>     That is the nature of English infinite tense. All other tenses are
>     correct, and teachers expect you to "correct" infinite tense, yet
>     they don't teach that. That's the basis of sentience. Infinite
>     tense is logically always in error.
>
>     Now with that in mind, "we" did not misunderstand the issues.
>     Don't blame others until you look in the mirror more. What makes
>     sense to you doesn't guarantee it makes sense to everybody else.
>     The "graphic form" does not denote sense to visual people! Don't
>     assume this! Like I said, visual people need complete ideas.
>     Visual people don't remember dictionary definitions as much as
>     auditory people don't remember graphic notations. It's because 60%
>     of the people are auditory (they remember active speech) they are
>     at constant battle with themselves in attempts to help the other
>     40% everywhere they don't need help -- is why there is ANY
>     miscomprehension.
>
>     Visual people find it completely dumb idea to have dictionaries
>     full words that have any prefixes or suffixes, as that is wasted
>     resources. Only the root words with possible prefixes and suffixes
>     are of need. The reason why they don't exist this way is because
>     of "figure-of-speech" and proof of that 60%. Unless you are
>     somehow smarter than the best and the brightest, I doubt you can
>     solely point out bad ideas such as dictionaries that list every
>     combination of root words with every possible suffix and prefix
>     individually such that basically kills us off slowly with lack of
>     symbiotic flow due to trees used for the numerous pages published
>     as scholarly works. It's a killing.
>
>
>
>     Morgaine wrote:
>
>         I'm afraid you misunderstand the issue, Dzonatas. �I'll add a
>         bit of background.
>
>         This has nothing to do with visual versus graphical
>         presentation. �I'm a big fan of both, and like yourself I
>         think spatially most of the time about architectures, which is
>         a graphic form. �Likewise, it has nothing to do with
>         accessibility whatsoever, of which I've been a very
>         enthusiastic proponent in Second Life for many years.
>
>         The only thing with which the "domain" argument is concerned
>         is whether the concept reflects something useful in VWRAP that
>         we can observe, query, interact with, or design a protocol
>         around. �The answer is "No" on all these counts for "Agent
>         Domain" in VWRAP, because it refers to a concept in OGP that
>         denied interop, and it does not apply to us.
>
>         As a result, far from helping anyone to understand the VWRAP
>         architecture, all it does is increase the amount of confusion
>         surrounding VWRAP, because it does not reflect anything useful
>         about what we are trying to implement.
>
>         The nearest we get in VWRAP to something that might have been
>         conceived originally as the "Agent Domain" in OGP is roughly
>         "The set of places and items and resources that this world
>         will permit an agent to visit or interact with ", which is
>         approximately the same thing as saying "the closed walled
>         garden". �It is a singularly counter-productive concept for a
>         group that has the important goal of achieving interop between
>         worlds.
>
>         So no, it's not helpful, either visually or otherwise. �The
>         term is just another obstacle on the road to VW interop. �That
>         OGP whiteboard never had other fluffy clouds on it labeled
>         "Virtual world B", "Virtual world C", and so on. �The concept
>         of interop between worlds was denied, because Agent Domain
>         controlled access to Region Domains, and so nothing outside
>         AD+RD existed in OGP.
>
>         But we are not designing OGP, we are designing VWRAP, a set of
>         protocols that embraces interoperation between worlds as well.
>         �That is why the Agent Domain does not exist as a useful
>         concept in this work. �It elevates world closure, negates
>         interoperation, and does not even admit other worlds into the
>         picture, because Agent Domain is defined to exclude them.
>
>         It's a very bad idea, both in text and as fluffy clouds.
>
>
>         Morgaine.
>
>
>     -- 
>     --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
>     Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     vwrap mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>   


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant