[bookport] Re: Interesting rumor

I have to go with Walt here.  I don't doubt James's difficultyand I'm sorry
to hear of it  but I've had my unit for  three and a half years with no
significant problems at all. Lou
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Walt Smith" <walt@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: Interesting rumor


> I guess you've disassembled your BP in order to determine that the keys
are
> rubber. The fact that the key _caps_ are rubber has absolutely no role to
> play in determining how long they may last and unless you've completely
> disassembled a unit, you have no more idea than anybody else how they're
> designed. You may never have dropped your unit, but how many times has the
> headphone plug been yanked out of the jack by accident? It's really too
bad
> you've had such bad luck, since the Book Port remains the single finest
> piece of design of blindness technology that I've seen; let alone owned;
in
> more than fifty years of using such devices.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "James Jolley" <james.jolley1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:42 PM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: Interesting rumor
>
>
> Hi,
>
> It will be interesting to see what APH come up with, because personally, I
> find that the Bookport is rather badly designed. It's tacky rubber keys
for
> a start have lead me to have to question that decision when they designed
> the unit. One wonders wether or not they suspected that longevity wouldn't
> be an issue, and as usual as blind individuals, we have to make yet
another
> purchase to keep up with the joanses as it were.
>
> Secondly, my unit has developed a rather interesting problem in that the
> left channel drops out periodicly. This is plain rediculous as it's never
> been dropped or anything. The entire design of the board is suspect in my
> view.
>
> I don't deny that the software that allows one to transfer files is ok,
but
> it's not quite as sophisticated as we are lead to believe. For instance,
> when transfering HTML files, the system is unable to read tags for
headings
> and so on, rather pointless. What always interested me is why APH didn't
> parce the HTML directly, instead of having to rely on word for it's
output?
> Also, why should one be required to use a secondry daisy reader, when
surely
> good programming practice would have the book port transfer include an
> appropriate DLL with the appropriate library functions to accomplish those
> tasks?
>
> To be absolutely honest, I have had no end of trouble with my unit. I've
> sent it back to our destributer in the UK, had it repaired, and after 9
> months of use, it is faulty again. One wonders wether springer's design
team
> took into acount how mutch these units would be used.
>
> Interestingly, I own a Book courier also, and although not as feature
ritch,
> it's overall design is significantly better, plus I have had no problems
> with my unit.
>
> What do people think? I am naturally expecting the usual that goes on on
> most blindness lists, the inevitable winers, but here's hoping eh?
>
> -James-
>
>

Other related posts: