I've always understood an operating system as a context or platformm or
environment within which software is written, but software is written in
whichever programming language one wishes. In other words, the operating
system has evolved into a diversifying and declining set of standards, but
it is not in and of itself the actual programming language. Having said
this, I am not a programmer by trade; we studied some in college days, and I
learned much more from NorTel buddies than in lectures. So, I've always
written programs to run on PCs directly, or for controllers and boards; nuts
and bolts stuff, which works fine for the basic optacon itself.
Is my understanding of the relationship between operating system and
programming language correct, or is me understanding about as good as my
driving?
Thanks,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: dan.tevelde@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:36 PM
To: optacon-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optacon-l] Re: a question regarding the ergonomic design and
mechanics of the optacon III
Hi Charles,
I think you would want to write software using a mainstream operating
system. This would allow users the option to configure an optacon to their
individual needs. It would also be easier to provide tech support for an
optacon if the software is written in a mainstream computer environment.
Not everyone knows C++ or Assembler. The goal should be to develop a device
which could be used by the largest market of blind people. Some may not
like that, but this is the present reality in the assistive technology
field.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: optacon-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optacon-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of C. Pond
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 7:15 PM
To: optacon-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optacon-l] Re: a question regarding the ergonomic design and
mechanics of the optacon III
Personally, if I had my druthers, I would like just a simple, small,
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 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.
