User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox

This is a draft version so we have something to look at and modify -- the content is very much in flux, so please make suggestions.

I don't think there is a need for a separate "types" of dyslexia topic -- that seems to me to be subsumed very much within the main dyslexia topic, and I don't see that there is a likelihood of developing separate articles on each subtype, because those really are only diagnostic characterizations. You'll see that your everything in your List1 overlaps with other categories - scientific research (2) and vision (4) -- so I don't think we don't need to duplicate information in multiple topics.

I don't know if it is simply because of your rough draft, but under "intervention methods" you've eliminated many of the items I had listed under "therapies" -- I think the main criteria as to whether something belongs in the navigation template is whether there is a an existing Wikipedia article of any substance -- not whether or not someone likes or approves of a method. So Orton-Gillingham, Davis Dyslexia, Dore/DDAT, Fast ForWord, etc. -- all get links because there is something to link *to*. To the extent that Wikipedia is a research tool, this is as it should be-- so someone who happens across the Dore/DDAT article for example will be able to use the navigational link to find other information about dyslexia and comparative information about interventions. Obviously some of these methods are based on conflicting theories, and some have aroused controversy -- but that's exactly why they belong in separate articles linked by an array that allows easy navigation between them.

Is it o.k. with you if I add or make changes to your draft above? Armarshall 08:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Arm.

I agree about not needing to duplicate information in multiple topics. I was thinking that this navigation box might be tool for navigating the article series that will be created when we break up the dyslexia article. I actually don't think it works, but I thought it was important to get the issue out on the table for discussion.

I did not put the intervention methods on the navigation template because commercial programs cannot be considered core topics for the article, not to mention all the articles where you're inserting the template. Many of the treatments listed are highly controversial, so how can they be considered "core" topics for navigation? Labeling them "treatments" indicates that they are commonly accepted as valid, which they aren't. In addition, we haven't included many of the commonly used dyslexia interventions, so we'd have to add them -- heavy space requirement. Finally, we've included them in the See Also section of the dyslexia page, so including them in the Nav template causes duplication.

To navigate between them easily, we could simply cross reference them all to each other. Or, I suppose we could create a navigation template for "Dyslexia Treatments, Mainstream and Controversial" or some such.

Not trying to be obstructionist here, but we need a common vision of what this template should include. To get to that point, we need to come to consensus on the scope of the navigation problem we're trying to address.

Best,

Rosmoran 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the point of a navigational template was to avoid having retype cross-references between closely related articles. So that's why I created it in the first place --I figured it could eliminate the need for some of the "see also" references and simply have a template that could go on the bottom of the page of each relevant article.

I also think that the distinction concerning "commercial" programs is not very helpful, because in most parts of the world the only thing available to families is some sort of privately-arranged therapy or tutoring, and many of the offshoots of traditional Orton-Gillingham tutoring are also "commercial". So for me, the issue would really be whether there is enough information to support a Wikipedia article on the therapy -- whether it is fairly common or widespread, whether there has been some third party commentary or research (enough to provide sourcing for an article), etc. If it is well-known enough to generate controversy, then it probably is something that people would want an encyclopedic reference to -- after all, if they can't find it in wikipedia, the only remaining reference point might be the commercial sites -- so wikipedia is one place where both sides of the controversy can weigh in. Finally, some of the so-called "commercial" therapies are methods that are often used within schools -- where do you draw the line? Armarshall 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, where do you draw the line? There are Wikipedia articles for many commonly used reading intervention programs --- Spalding Method, Open Court Reading, DISTAR, Wilson Reading system, Reading Recovery, Alphabetic Phonics, Reading is Fundamental, etc etc. Do we include all of them? Where do we draw the line?

My view of this kind of thing is to list the type of intervention method rather than the named product. --- so, Multisensory instruction rather than Orton-Gillingham, Direct instruction instead of DISTAR, Auditory training (or whatever), vision therapy, etc, rather than the actual names of the products themselves.

Rosmoran 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

With this navigation box, I'm looking to create a more general navigation tool that could be used by multiple articles. If used by multiple articles, the topics included in the nav box must cover the scope of all articles that use it.

I'm confused. I understand the hierarchy -- this is a broader topic than "dyslexia and related conditions" -- but I had created the dyslexia navigation box in the first place with the idea that it was a navigation tool that would be used by multiple articles, that were offshoots or closely related to the dyslexia article. The most obvious would be articles about different scientific theories or different intervention methods. Maybe this is just a semantic thing, but I'm not sure I understand where each of the navigation boxes would go. Armarshall 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So, in creating this, I was thinking to create a navigation box that could be used in all of the Learning Disability topics. The template would go in the following articles (or at least in all of the articles listed in the 2 learning disability categories:

• Auditory processing disorder
• Dysgraphia
• Dyslexia
• Dyspraxia
• Expressive Language Disorder
• Nonverbal learning disability
• Receptive Language Disorder
• Disorders of Hearing and Listening

It would also go in the Learning disability article.

Treatments, etc would go in the individual articles -- for example, OT is frequently used for dysgraphia, but not for dyslexia.

I'm not sure this is the "right" hierarchy level, but this is the issue I keep saying we need to come to consensus on.

Make sense?

Best,

Rosmoran 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think you have a vision of something bigger than my initial intent with the "dyslexia" template -- I was looking mostly for a tool that would help get started with the task of breaking "dyslexia" up into smaller articles -- but I can see how my starting point was kind of overbroad and left the whole idea somewhat muddled. So it does make sense to me now to have two separate templates. As to the issue of treatments, part of my goal is to get the details of treatments OUT of the main dyslexia article. Same with the scientific research part. I think those two topics should be summarized briefly in the main article, but if people want to learn more about a particular type of therapy or research theory, then they can jump to the article that discusses that in greater depth.

Anyway, I am going to try to think more in terms of that hierarchy and restrict my "dyslexia" template to topics that would come under dyslexia -- with the bigger, broader issues being pushed to your "learning disabilities" topic. So... if this makes sense, I can see "special education" or "reading" as being things that belong on the broader, LD navigation template... whereas a tutoring method such as Orton-Gillingham would be on the "dyslexia" template because that is something specifically developed for dyslexia. Does that make sense?

Best wishes, Armarshall 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at. Sounds like we're in about the same space, now.

I saw a template on another page that I kind of liked as a possible navigation box for an article series. I'll mock something up and point you to it. I look forward to seeing what you come up with!

Best, Rosmoran 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[[Category:Psychology navigation templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[zh:Template:Psychology sidebar]]

Note: This is not a formal proposal. I'm just throwing out ideas for consideration. We might choose to use none, some, or all of these ideas, and I won't be offended.

This strawman navigation template is based on the psychology navigation template, shown below (scroll down), and is intended to guide readers through the planned Dyslexia article series.

I used some of the information types from the psychology navigation structure --- click on the Publications, Topics, and Therapies links to see what they do.

In terms of format, we could make the box wider, longer, center or right justify text, etc. There are lots of options. Oh, and we'd have to replace the psychology icon also.  :-)

Take a look at User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox test article to see roughly what the Dyslexia article would look like with this template inserted.

I really like that idea a lot -- I agree that it serves the purpose that I was thinking of for navigation to other articles related to dyslexia much better. Plus it also looks like it is more flexible in terms of expanding as needed as more articles are added. I think it would solve a lot of problems/issues that we have had with organizational structure. The only change I would suggest right now is that I think "Related conditions" should go above "Theories" -- everything else is fine with me, and the current size looks o.k. to me as well. Armarshall 09:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the image, to a Penrose triangle -- the reason I chose that is that the triangle shape is reminiscent of the Greek Delta Δ (the first letter in "Dyslexia") - and research has shown that dyslexics are able to recognize impossible figures faster than non-dyslexics, (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12744954&dopt=Citation) so an impossible figure is associated with a dyslexic talent. So I just thought it was a nice symbol to be associated with our dyslexia article. Armarshall 10:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh,good! I'm glad you like it. I have no issue moving the related conditions above theories.

I'm so glad you found a replacement graphic. I've been looking for something ---- combing free clip art sites all evening with very little luck.

I think I'll place a link to this on the Dyslexia Talk page and also on the Dyslexia Template Talk page. That way folks can take a look and give feedback.

Have a good .... uhm, morning!

Rosmoran 11:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Psychology navigation templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[zh:Template:Psychology sidebar]]