[access-uk] Re: TALKING PICTURES
- From: "Marie Baisez" <marie.baisez@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:08:48 +0200
what an interesting message! thanks Tris...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tristram Llewellyn" <tris-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: TALKING PICTURES
Hi Ian
This is a question I would love to fully answer but cannot. The
question/argument you riase comes up and is quite a good example to take up
because it seems to fit some commonsense notion that blending existing
technologies and re-packaging them at inflated price is what has been done
here. Commonsense seems to dictate that this is what is going on with the
KNFB reader, and it sounds even worse if an American blind charity is
involved but not dishing these out to their users at reduced or no cost.
This is a question based on a little knowledge of technology; therefore, the
answer will also have to be of a technical nature, even as it is it will not
entirely meet the question..
I will try to elucidate on this specific example at a technical or
engineering level. The reason is that to take in a whole industry, economic
structures, economies of scale, financial obstacles to development, short
term behavior of western venture capital, specialist markets would be beyond
my qualification therefore I cannot answer the whole equation. The point
about the Gates trust is interesting, I confess that I do not know why not,
but it probably depends upon its focus they have. There is an issue about
inward investment and the economics but I fear the answer is probably not as
cut and dried as anyone would like to think, of course such companies know
the cheaper something is, the more people are able to buy into it, but just
knowing that doesn't actually make it happen. Just as a brief diversion if
I may, I can personally remember having some tiny involvement in it, when
organizations for the blind were approaching people to produce standards and
lobby manufacturers and developers to produce an accessible DAB radio. When
after approximately five to six years had elapsed a model has come out, it
was met with what Pure called "disappointing sales" and that was your cheap
everybody get in there price sitting right at the other end of the price
spectrum. I have a notion from seeing from the inside of some of these
difficult issues but I do not think I am qualified (at least yet) to give
any public analysis of it. I can point you in the direction of what is
going on with the reader itself at some technical level that would help to
explain what is behind it rather than what is apparent on the surface.
The answer in short to the initial question is that you would be quite right
to assert that the price tag of KNFB reader is not equal the hardware alone,
but it is not all hardware. Commonsense might dictate that slicing a
camera, PDA and some OCR software together into a box you have something
like a KNFB reader. This is an attractive proposition isn't it, but
anything that seems to good to be true probably is just that otherwise we'd
all be at our kitchen tables making KNFB readers. Unfortunately, that is a
cooking methodology, mixing ingredients; it is not equal to the task of
making a portable text acquisition device because it doesn't aim to solve
the problems inherent in such a device and that is where you need to start.
The problems thrown up by creation of a free moving portable text
acquisition device are quite different from those of a flatbed scanner and
this is why you cannot just get an OCR package to run a KNFB reader.
Consider anecdotally that even some sighted people can take awful pictures
with a camera that technically is quite capable of taking much better
pictures. Even with adequate to full sight, not everyone knows how even
with the features at their disposal take a picture that technically
compensates for issues of lighting, focus, depth of field etc. Then, if you
then chuck in a blind user, things might get really unpredictable. The
subject of their picture is relatively fine print, probably not in ideal
lighting conditions, the camera can shake whilst taking the picture, they
may be at an awkward angle, the spine of a book causes curvature of the text
in places and we have a scanning problem ready to chew on which is quite
different from a flatbed scanner. With a flatbed scanner, you have a
relatively controlled situation with known distance to the medium you are
scanner, controllable lighting conditions. A portable reader is somewhat
different. If you don't take my word for it take a look at this interview
with Ray Kurzweil himself. The target audience is mainly the engineering
community but may still prove informative and fascinating in parts.
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=12979
If you read the article, you will begin to understand where some of that
extra cost beyond the hardware has gone. If you haven't yet and you are
still in the dark, it is the software that is driving the thing that is
costing a significant amount of money. Even with NFB behind with some
funds, encouragement and other support. Specific technical issues create
significant challenges that have to be met to create a workable product.
Some entirely new bits of software have to be created which are not
immediately obvious to the user that is critical for the reader's operation.
The software that describes what the user is taking a picture of was a
significant and new task. Why do we need it, because the user taking the
picture has no or little sight? How do you tell a person who has limited or
no direct sensory experience of picture taking what is there to correct any
problem. This would be amazingly difficult and has cost many person-hours
of time to work out as well as it is has been done.
Ray Kurzweil has an amazing track record, and has had a long association
with NFB in the states. Though it is difficult to play the game of
historical "what if", it may be that if it were not for his omni font
character recognition techniques we might not be where we are now. He is
optimistic about future prospects for what this technology can do in the
future. His first scanner for the blind cost $25,000 in 1976 as a starting
point, we are starting with something somewhat cheaper now, cheaper than the
famous Opticon when it was first introduced costing something like the £3000
in it's day but closer to £10000 in today's money. This is all of course
relative and the ratio of price drop is going to be different, but it is a
start.
Regards.
Tristram Llewellyn
Sight and Sound Technology
Technical Support
www.sightandsound.co.uk
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
Other related posts:
