[bookport] Re: Enhancements to Bookport Device

  • From: "TerriStimmel" <ropgirl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:32:36 -0500

Hello all,
Upgrading and improving technology is fine.  But when do you decide that
enough is enough?
The more "improvements" that you make to the bookport, then the more issues
you might end up running into in the long run.  Personally, I don't want the
Bookport to be able to do everything possible. There are enough devices out
there, for us, that can do so many things.
I feel the simplicity and slickness of this product is wonderful.  The more
you add, the less simple this product becomes.
The more bugs you might have.  And also, the price would probably have to be
raised.
Like I said, I'm not against making changes, but I think that if changes are
made, they need to be carefully thought threw.
Technology changes enough, I'd like the Bookport to stay as simple as
possible.  If I want to have a product that does multiple things, then I
hope to be carrying more than just the Bookport.
And as for the sighted world, with their multi-functioning devices, maybe
that is great.  But don't forget that because of all this high-tech stuff,
we've been left out in the cold a great deal.
The more technical things get, the less access we seem to have.
Just my thoughts.
Terri
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <peter.rand@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:06 AM
Subject: [bookport] Re: Enhancements to Bookport Device


> James Jolley writes:
> > I agree. Without wishing to sstair up a hornets nest, why is it that
> whenever viable suggestions are made, the same few people always have to
> shoot us down?  Take for instance my suggestion a while back about
improving
> braille input. That was shot to bits by a select few people who seem to
> think that we're detracting from what the BookPort is.  We're not.  APH
have
> already done that, it doesn't just read us text files does it?  It has a
> clock, memo, braille input, so really, why shouldn't we make this better.
>
> James,
> I'm also in the firmly in the camp that says "why not make improvements
that
> don't detract from the BookPort's usefulness"?
>
> I really fail to see how adding a pronunciation editor to the BookPort
> Transfer Software would make life difficult for those not interested in
this
> feature: if you don't like it, don't use it. For me, and many others, it
> would be a very welcome and a significant improvement.
>
> Likewise, I think enhanced Braille input (to allow the creation of text
> files) would tremendously enhance the BookPort's usefulness to me. For
those
> not interested in this ability, just don't use it.
>
> Most of the improvements we are talking about are merely enhanced software
> capabilities, so (and correct me if I'm wrong) users won't have to run out
> and buy another BookPort every time there's a new feature.
>
> I don't pretend to use all of the BookPort's capabilities: some are more
> important to me than others. But in the end, allowing users to choose from
a
> broad selection of useful features (some of which they will use, some of
> which they won't use) only benefits us all.
>
> Peter
>
>


Other related posts: