I agree with that ten thousand percent!
Bye for now,
Carolyn
-----Original Message-----
From: optacon-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optacon-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Noel Runyan
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 1:17 AM
To: optacon-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optacon-l] Re: a question regarding the ergonomic design and
mechanics of the optacon III
Chuck,
I am not so sure that the Optacon III has to be packaged as part of a braille
display device. For readers who only need the Optacon reading capability, they
won't want to have to spend even more money to buy all the additional braille
display hardware.
It might make more sense to concentrate your efforts on getting out your basic
Optacon tactile display, as a module that could be packaged into different
products, including a basic stand-alone reading device. You could then supply
the tactile image display to the manufacturers of braille displays and braille
notetakers, to integrate with their systems.
As one who has been part of the painfully long development of the NBP (Boston
National Braille
Press) notetaker, called the B2G, I can tell you that it would be a big mistake
to squander your precious time and skills on also trying to design and
manufacturer your own braille notetaker. Better to let someone else marry your
tactile display module into their braille device design.
By the way, Deane Blazie specified from the very beginning of the NBP
development of the B2G that its basic Android-based design should be considered
open source. The B2G design might be the basis for the souped-up design of a
braille display device that includes the Optacon function.
Although I don't know very much about your tactile display technology, I would
say that, judging from what you have shared with us, that you should be
focusing on solving the excessive power consumption issue and getting together
a minimal function tactile display prototype
device for demonstrating the capability of the display approach.
Demonstrations of such a prototype would not have to expose confidential
aspects of your basic actuator technology. A demonstration of this prototype
to the right folks would be very effective in pulling together the type of
resources and help you need to get your system off the drawing board and
available to include in real products that others can help develop.
Cordially,
Noel
-
Noel H. Runyan
Phone: 1-(408) 866-7564
-
At 05:14 PM 12/14/2016, you wrote:
Personally, if I had my druthers, I would like just a simple, small,to view the list archives, go to:
straightforward, uncomplicated optacon without these extras. However,
although I have done no formal studies, it just seems by all accounts
that such a preferable device would not take serious flight. So, it
seems that an optacon must be a modular part of an access device, with
the default mode being the nice and straightforward optacon mode.
I wouldn't say things are speeing up; I'm simply working with what I
have, when I can, until more favourable winds blow. I meet soon with a
certain bank to take steps in finally setting up a legal/financial
accountable entity to receive money to take the optacon/braille display
to the finish line. Production and sales is a different matter, of
which I know basically nothing.
The main technical challenge is reducing the power consumption, and
making the power pack smaller than its at least 6 D-cell batteries
minimum. There is a completely suitable alternative energy solution
which I have developed for such things as transportation, but at this
point there might be legal issues which prevent me from dropping it
very simply into the optacon and easily doing away with the portable
power problem m. Although several materials are being studied to
improve the displays' efficiency (which would not be noticed by the
user), these efforts and strategies are to reduce power consumption,
and even if they don't happen, I'm not worried about the displays; they work
fine as they are.
The basic optacon software itself is straightforward, and it could be
programmed or written to be run on anything really: a tablet, a
smartphone, a handheld computer. I'm thinking that rather than using
an off-the-shelf, small motherboard and with the braille display and
optacon as its peripherals--in addition to the board as a standard
computer--why tie the purchaser to one's version of the computer, when
one cann simply use a prefered tablet or whatever. I have not yet
tried to program the basic optacon functions in Android or use them
with a tablet or smartphone. I have bypassed any operating system, and
programmed two boards using C++ and the required assembler. I kind of
wonder about the need for these portable O/S platforms, when
well-designed software can drive the computer boar directly and with far, far
less resource fuss.
Of course, if there ends up being one module as the braille display,
its keyboard, another for the basic optacon, and then one fits in their
prefered portable computing device for its own accessible use, this
raises the issue of streamlined ergonomics--the form factor.
The use of a touch tablet, however, would open up some interesting
possibilities, not to mention making the device more in line with
consumer products and more easily updated.
In and of themselves, the braille display and standard notetaking
functions, and the optacon, do not require a standard computer mother
board or even a tablet or smartphone, although they are useful and
convenient. Something like the French "Essytime" (it is called
something like that), which is a braille display built directly into a
standard portable computer with a perkins keyboard, and so their
accessible computer, not needing a built-in display as a lid, and with
no qwerty keyboard, is quite portable and smaller than the standard laptop but
with the power and portability of a laptop.
The French use a standard computer motherboard, so it can be easily
updated and consumer compatible save for the braille display. Several
decades ago now, I took the design of Smith-Kettlewell's
"Note-A-Braille", refined it, added to it, and gradually migrated it
from a hardware bench device to mostly software using C++; it was a
test project for academic purposes, not an intended product, So, the
braille display module and its software / optacon combo can easily be
done without the need for a standard computer as part of the consumer package.
So, back to the modular approach: the software for the notetaker, the
braille display module and perkins keyboard which contains the
notetaker software (its board is like a small cracker) and advanced
optacon bells and whistles, the autonymous optacon module and its nifty
camera...and then
what: must there be an obligatory computer so it will sell because one
would have the full use of a fully accessible computer? It is becoming
too convoluted for my personal comfort. All of this stuff so that our
irreplaceable optacon will have a market? Yes, one could use the
braille/optacon combo as a peripheral for whichever computer they have
and this as it should be of course, but this again raises the
ergonomics issue.--does it?
Personally, if I had my way, why not just a simple, nicely updated and
straightforward optacon and that would be that. It appears that
reality requires a more encompassing solution.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Debby Franson
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:34 PM
To: optacon-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optacon-l] Re: a question regarding the ergonomic design and
mechanics of the optacon III
Hi Chuck!
I'm glad your progress is speeding up. That's exciting.
I agree with you about tacking on the smart display would probably make
a clunkier design, being the worst of the options.
Could a cover be made to put on to cover the "fat domino" space,
similar to the cover that is placed over the spot on the optacon II
when the battery pack is removed? That cover would protect whatever the
opening leaves exposed and keep dust out.
I agree that one versital unit would be best.
Debby
At 02:13 AM 12/12/2016, C. Pond wrote
An optacon III ergonomic mechanical question if I may in order torecommended a one-handed option, we
make it marketable, accompanied by a pre-amble for its context:
As things stand now, the optacon III̢۪s display ha has evolved from
a mere dumb display (a mere vibrotactile output device which feels
something like a fat domino)) to a stand-alone display into which the
nifty camera and power and whatever can be plugged. This way, the
camera and the smart-display can be mechanically connected to form a
crude one-handed optacon with room for improvement, or they can be
used each in one hand as we traditionally have done. Although I am
still really concerned about the power monster, and I̢۪m working
with tuflon an and a few other experimental strategies to reduce
power consumption, Iâ€ââ„¢m not worried about a vibrotactile
display. We have a two-handed optacon---even in its basic
formâ€â€and since Mr. Noel Runyan
now have that as well. So be it. Having said these things, it is myup-to-date small optacon simply will
“senseâ€Â or belief that a simple ple
not sell, take wings and fly. no matter the zeal of present optaconcome al along, ten years from now
users. I could be wrong, given proper education of blind people,
especially children, but that is how it looks realistically from this
user̢۪s vantage. If no new optacon users
will show a very different optacon-user landscape compared to today.s
Therefore, from this line of reasoning, I have combined the basic
optacon III with a small, standard computer (around the size of a
Braille Sense U2 32-cell model; smaller than a Braille Lite 40) and
a built-in 32-cell braille display (which unfortunately and to my
chagrin and sincere regret and wish for the contrary is proprietary
at this time, and this goes against Every sentiment and wish within
me to have it so!). The braille display can be built by hand for a
few hundred dollars, and likely would be less costly if produced by
automation and in numbers greater than 99 per batch. At this point,
the optacon III̢۪s
display fits nicely behind the spacebar and between dots 1 and 4 ofn
the device̢۪s perkin
s keyboard. So, along one long edge at the front is the 32-cellsolidifyifying the optacon III̢۪s
display (built with banks of 4 braille cells per bank, smaller than
bimorph-based cells), and the optacon III̢۪s display is right at
at the back edge, between dots 1 and 4, and therefore in the middle
of the edge. The device has as many useful functions as any
hand-held computer with a robust braille display and good
accessibility. However, if the optacon III̢۪s vibrotactile
display is built into the hanhand-held computer with its inexpensive
and robust braille display, several questions come to mind for which I do
need feedback.
1. Although the smart display could be made mechanically to slide in
and out of its place, like the old PCMCIA cards, when the display is
removed and connected to its camera, a rectangle-like void about the
size of a fat domino would be left in the hand-held computer with its
braille display. So, what to do in order to prevent this mechanical
oddity or use the empty display space?
2. Is there a better way to design the mechanics of the device?
The only reason why I̢۪m evolving toward
s
design as part of an encompassing system is that on its own, a newonly twotwo reasons I can see for
optacon likely would not sell, so other things must be added. Likely
enough, most people would use the braille display and computer more
often than the optacon III̢۪s vibrotactile display. The
being able to detach the optacon III̢۪s display fr from the
hand-held computer are:
1. To connect it to its camera for one-handed use.
2. To use it as a stand-alone, small, versatile optacon.
Otherwise, and if a stand-alone optacon would indeed sell, this stuff
about a hand-held computer with a built-in braille display would not
be an issue.
If the smart display were merely tacked onto one end or the other of
the hand-held computer, that would solve nothing and would make
ergonomic design and use even worse.
I doubt a market exists for two optacon III versions: a one-handed
optacon and a two-handed optacon, and also not likely for a simple,
stand-alone optacon III. If I had my way, I would build the
detachable optacon III into an encompassing system, and find a good
use for that fat domino void, or find a way so it doesn̢۪t happen in the
first pt place.
So, please, any thoughts and suggestions? No doubt the mechanical
solution for this is simple and straightforward.
Chuck
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
to view the list archives, go to:
www.freelists.org/archives/optacon-l
To unsubscribe at any time, just send a message to:
optacon-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" (without
the
quotes) in the message subject.
Tell your friends about the list. They can subscribe by sending a
message
to:
optacon-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "subscribe" (without
the
quotes) in the message subject.
to view the list archives, go to:
www.freelists.org/archives/optacon-l
To unsubscribe at any time, just send a message to:
optacon-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" (without
the
quotes) in the message subject.
Tell your friends about the list. They can subscribe by sending a
message
to:
optacon-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "subscribe" (without the
quotes) in the message subject.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
to view the list archives, go to:
www.freelists.org/archives/optacon-l
To unsubscribe at any time, just send a message to:
optacon-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" (without
the quotes) in the message subject.
Tell your friends about the list. They can subscribe by sending a message to:
optacon-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "subscribe" (without the
quotes) in the message subject.
