Yes, Debbie, such a cover could be done. I am thinking of an accessible
peripheral with the optacon III full tilt and a braille display with the
usual things we blind folks use, but for anything more heavy like
internet-related stuff, or standard programs, one would connect or pair it
with their prefered computing device like a PC, laptop, smartphone etc. Let
a comsumer computer handle the heavy stuff, and let us not be tied to a
proprietary computing device.
I still wish someone would write me off list and PLEASE explain the
necessity and value of an operating system related to software and the
language in which the software is written. After all, whether or not an
operating systen is used, one must still write something useable in a
programming language; the operating system does not change this. In both
cases, the architecture of the boar and the CPU must be known, and how to
access other items on the board. If a computing device operating on
something like Android were connected to an optacon III braille device
dombo, if such an access device were not based on a mobile operating system,
the host Android computing device (or Windows or whatever)could still easily
link up. So, would some kind soul write me and in detail explain to me what
I do not grasp.
I wish the blind conputer programmers list were still around and active.
By the way, the braille module (that is all it is) works find as it is, and
fulfills the criteria for a robust, protected, versatile, inexpensive
braille module. One can wrap whatever box they wish around it. Materials
improvement really and greater efficiency, that's about it aside from
bringing it to production and to fruition. The braille module is the issue;
functions can be assined to it according to the designer of the device in
which it is housed. Same for an Optacon III module.
What am I missing?
Chuck open to being educated
-----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 to make it
marketable, accompanied by a pre-amble for its context:
As things stand now, the optacon III’s display 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 I’m working with tuflon and a few other
experimental strategies to reduce power consumption, I’m not worried
about a vibrotactile display. We have a two-handed optacon---even in its
basic form—and since Mr. Noel Runyan recommended a one-handed option, we
now have that as well. So be it. Having said these things, it is my
“sense†or belief that a simple up-to-date small optacon simply will
not sell, take wings and fly. no matter the zeal of present optacon
users. I could be wrong, given proper education of blind people,
especially children, but that is how it looks realistically from this
user’s vantage. If no new optacon users come along, ten years from now
will show a very different optacon-user landscape compared to
today. 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 III’s
display fits nicely behind the spacebar and between dots 1 and 4 of the
device’s perkin
s keyboard. So, along one long edge at the front is the 32-cell display
(built with banks of 4 braille cells per bank, smaller than bimorph-based
cells), and the optacon III’s display is right 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
III’s vibrotactile display is built into the hand-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 I’m evolving toward solidifying the optacon III’s
design as part of an encompassing system is that on its own, a new 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 III’s vibrotactile display. The only two reasons I can see for
being able to detach the optacon III’s display 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 doesn’t happen in the first 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.