[BlindTlk] Braille books in old old

Thu Sep 5 22:38:15 UTC 2019

Steve:  I believe their were less pins in the 
array for the Optacon 2, to save money.

I had an original Optacon, and used to use it, 
but was never very fast. And ... since I wasn't fast, I didn't use it much.

There were some people who became very good with 
it -- but most of us weren't fast enough to make it useful.

Dave

At 09:20 AM 9/4/2019, you wrote:
>Ericka,
>
>I am another Optacon user, and I find it 
>frustrating that no current technology lets us 
>do the same thing as an Optacon did.  However, I 
>think we have to be careful not to glorify it 
>too much.  There were many people who just 
>couldn't get the hang of using it.  One moved a 
>camera with the right hand and read with the 
>left hand which meant that there was some 
>coordination needed.  Also, the resolution of 
>the display was much higher than what one sees 
>on the braille display.  There were therefore 
>people who  could read braille but whose fingers 
>had trouble reading with an Optacon.  Reading 
>speed was also an issue.  There were quite a few 
>people who read up to 100 words per minute.  I 
>am not aware of anybody who read much faster 
>than that.  Those whom I knew that read 100 
>words per minute with an Optacon were also very 
>fast braille readers, reading probably three 
>times that rate in braille.  I tended to read 
>for detail and my reading speed was not that 
>good.  Also, one didn't just buy the unit and 
>read.  There was a definite learning curve, and 
>one really had to commit to reading a 
>significant amount each day to achieve a maximum 
>reading speed.  It also meant that many of us 
>had to learn print letters and symbols as 
>well.  Telesensory and other agencies offered 
>training programs to get one started that lasted 
>two weeks or so.  This training was not cheap 
>and was a significant addition to the price.
>
>In an effort to move toward making a more 
>portable model and to make it less expensive, 
>Telesensory developed the Optacon II which used 
>some off-the-shelf parts that were custom made 
>for the original optacon.  It also used some 
>digital technology.  However, those of us who 
>used the new optacon found that the images 
>seemed less sharp than on the original 
>optacon.  I don't know why that was.  That was 
>disappointing, and it probably hurt sales 
>some.  One would think that with today's 
>technology that such a problem probably would be nonexistent.
>
>Finally, Telesensory took the marketing approach 
>that the Optacon could replace braille and 
>pushed some to get it into the hands of young 
>blind kids in schools.  Given that braille is 
>often read more quickly by people who learn it 
>at a young age, the idea that a young child 
>could perhaps learn to read with an Optacon much 
>faster was probably justifiable, but many of us 
>thought that it was risky for kids to spend a 
>lot of time learning the Optacon rather than 
>learning braille.  I think all of these things 
>caused the Optacon to disappear as a product.
>
>I've seen projects to build a new Optacon, but 
>nothing solid seems to ever happen with those 
>projects.  I must also say that even at the 
>time, I wondered how we would have handled the 
>success of the Optacon to see our ability to 
>read controlled by a single company, at the 
>expense of braille.  It never came to that, but 
>it was not beyond the realm of possibility if 
>faster reading speeds could have been achieved 
>at the expense of learning braille.
>
>Also, the optacon did not provide us with a more 
>convenient way to write.  There was an 
>attachment that one could by that mounted the 
>optacon camera on certain typewriters.  The 
>attachment allowed one to see the character that 
>was being typed allowing one to make more 
>reliable corrections.  However, even portable 
>typewriters of the day were not that small.
>
>Another attachment allowed one to use the 
>Optacon to read an electronic 
>calculator.  Remember, they didn't talk until 
>1975 or so and the Optacon was available 
>slightly before that time, and the first talking 
>calculators were expensive.  Yet another 
>attachment could be used to read computer 
>screens.  At that time, talking computers were also not available.
>
>Both the availability of talking calculators and 
>computers that supported braille and speech cut 
>into the value of these additional 
>attachments.  In those cases, the Optacon really 
>didn't add value over the option of braille and 
>speech.  That probably also cut into the market for the Optacon.
>
>Still, I have a much better sense of how print 
>looks and the differences between different 
>fonts and such because of the Optacon.  There 
>are still times when I find I can read something 
>that none of the OCR approaches reads, and I 
>don't always know why.  Still, more often than 
>not, I tend to try K-1000, Seeing-AI, or 
>VoiceDream Scanner first when reading something 
>because if they succeed they are faster, and 
>over the years the KNFB reader has been very useful.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Steve Jacobson
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BlindTlk <blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Ericka via BlindTlk
>Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 7:52 AM
>To: Blind Talk Mailing List <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
>Cc: Ericka <dotwriter1 at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [BlindTlk] Braille books in old old
>
>Why didnâ€™t they just make a more portable 
>model rather than abandon them? I remember 
>hearing that the first K- NFB type reading 
>things were in the late 70s. My husband uses 
>Kurzweil 1000 on his computer. I donâ€™t know 
>how to use it. I use Seeing AI mostly. For the 
>bottles, we both have a script to talk station.
>
>Ericka Nelson
>
> > On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:45 PM, Judy Jones via 
> BlindTlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, they are great, and individuals still 
> sell them, and there are people who still 
> repair them, so they are alive and well.
> >
> > Yes, you are actually reading print with this 
> mechanical device.  All this before OCR 
> technology.  The blind person is the brains, 
> and you are actually reading what a sighted person would see.
> >
> > You can read round medicine bottles and things that OCR can't touch.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BlindTlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> > Ericka via BlindTlk
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 7:09 PM
> > To: Blind Talk Mailing List
> > Cc: Ericka
> > Subject: Re: [BlindTlk] Braille books in old old
> >
> > I saw one once but never got to use it. That 
> was before I knew any braille at all. From what 
> I understand it raised the printer somethings 
> so you can read it. That would make sense Judy 
> that you would understand. What do people do 
> when theyâ€™re ancient up to cons die? You 
> canâ€™t replace them and I bet you canâ€™t fix 
> them too easily either. I heard they were pretty cool.
> >
> > Ericka Nelson
> >
> >> On Sep 3, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Judy Jones via 
> BlindTlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> It makes verymuch sense to those of us that use an optacon.
> >>
> >> Judy
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: BlindTlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Ericka via BlindTlk
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 5:13 PM
> >> To: Blind Talk Mailing List
> >> Cc: Ericka
> >> Subject: Re: [BlindTlk] Braille books in old old
> >>
> >>
> >> I think it makes less sense to people who 
> have never seen print done to those of us who 
> could reprint at one time in our lives. It 
> makes sense to let you know whether something 
> is in bold or not. And if you are formatting 
> something to be printed and look good for the 
> side of the world itâ€™s important as well. The 
> rest of the world centers titles a lot of times 
> like on a resume for example. I do think itâ€™s 
> stupid that they took some signs away. Braille 
> is a lot of extra pages. Someone told me once 
> that it takes three braille pages to equal the 
> information one printed page and thatâ€™s not 
> including spacing such as between paragraphs etc.
> >>
> >> I donâ€™t think you guys realize how 
> different print is from braille. And I 
> wouldnâ€™t expect any person who was born blind 
> and I only read braille to understand. Just be nice to those of us who can.
> >>
> >> Ericka Nelson
> >>
> >>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:41 PM, Jesse Johnson 
> via BlindTlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I agree this new EB makes no sense at all
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Pamela 
> Dominguez via BlindTlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I know we can't do anything about it.  I 
> can read it somewhat better, depending on how 
> much different stuff there is in it.  If it's 
> just regular text, it's okay.  But I don't see 
> any reason to ever write it, myself.  I just 
> don't think I will be put in a situation where that is necessary.  Pam.
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Hyde, David W. (ESC) via BlindTlk
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 11:16 AM
> >>>> To: Blind Talk Mailing List
> >>>> Cc: Hyde, David W. (ESC)
> >>>> Subject: Re: [BlindTlk] Braille books in old old
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, whether we like it or not, the train 
> has left the station. I can read UEB better 
> than I can write it. Sixty years of doing it 
> one way doesn't change in a moment. I still put 
> words together, use signs that have gone away, 
> and when reading, I come to a full stop when I see a, followed by tion.
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: BlindTlk <blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Jesse
> >>>> Johnson via BlindTlk
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:11 AM
> >>>> To: Blind Talk Mailing List <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
> >>>> Cc: Jesse Johnson <jayjohnson66 at me.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [BlindTlk] Braille books in old old
> >>>>
> >>>> I think of the old saying if itâ€™s not broke donâ€™t fix it they broke
> >>>> it by trying to fix it
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:07 AM, Ericka via 
> BlindTlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are words that you canâ€™t combine 
> together anymore like of the house to have a 
> space between it. The sign for by like â€œby 
> the seaside or byline Hass to be spelled out now.
> >>>>> Trust me, Iâ€™ve tried to read the stuff 
> and I canâ€™t. Itâ€™s too confusing. 
> Punctuation changed a lot by the way. The 
> simple.?, Etc. didnâ€™t but have you looked at 
> those parenthesis? Yeah they look a lot more 
> like print so itâ€™s easy for me to remember how to read.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ericka Nelson
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 12:13 AM, Judy Jones 
> via BlindTlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In US Braille:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dropped d at the beginning of a word is letters dis.
> >>>>>> In the middle is a double-d as in "daddy."
> >>>>>> At the end is a period.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dropped h at beginning is a open-quote In middle, not used in
> >>>>>> literary braille.
> >>>>>> At the end, a question-mark.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dropped F:
> >>>>>> At beginning is the word "to."
> >>>>>> In the middle is a double-f.
> >>>>>> At the end is an exclamation point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These things aren't that much different 
> in UEB, although some of the rules did change for UEB.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Judy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: BlindTlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>> Ericka via BlindTlk
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 7:20 PM
> >>>>>> To: Blind Talk Mailing List
> >>>>>> Cc: Ericka
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [BlindTlk] Braille books in old old
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Judy, and I learn braille as a child or 
> had no residual vision I probably could. 
> However I find the US braille difficult. 
> Dropped F, drop D and dropped H. is in weird 
> places main something depending on where they 
> are. That is confusing! I read faster in the 
> new braille. I have childrenâ€™s books and some 
> religious things for the taking.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ericka Nelson
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 2, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Judy Jones 
> via BlindTlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi, Erika,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually, if you can do UEB braille, 
> you can also read US.  There are differences in 
> the punctuation and numbers formatting, but the 
> numbers and letters themselves are all the 
> same.  Most of the contractions are the same, 
> they have done away with some of them, but you 
> will never find a strange formation of dots you can't recognize.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I took the UEB course, just to know 
> what it is like, and although I prefer US braille, I can read the UEB.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Judy
> >>>>>>> â€œEmbrace the day with its mercies and blessings.â€
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: BlindTlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>> Ericka via BlindTlk
> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 9:46 AM
> >>>>>>> To: Blind Talk Mailing List
> >>>>>>> Cc: Ericka
> >>>>>>> Subject: [BlindTlk] Braille books in old old
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Iâ€™m wondering what people are doing 
> with braille books that are in that were 
> produced before the 2015 change over to UEB. I 
> have braille books that I really donâ€™t want 
> to toss, but I canâ€™t read them well enough in 
> the pre-2015 braille to justify keeping. Iâ€™m 
> willing to send them overseas or free matter 
> them to someone who canâ€™t send them overseas. Let me know.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ericka Nelson