[nabs-l] The technology in specialized notetakers

[justin williams]

I actually have a braille display, but I only get the convenience of braille
when it is plugged in. But at the convention, I saw such a huge use for the
notetaker.  You guys just whipped those things out and typed down all kinds
of stuff.  I stood back as you put in my phone number, and a variety of
other information.  You folks also sat at desks and wrote down people's
information as they checked into the meetings.  Fast as lightening; it was
impressive.  

-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Kaiti Shelton
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 11:38 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] The technology in specialized notetakers

Unless they've also bought you a braille display to go along with the
laptop, I don't see why they can't get you something with a refreshable
braille display.  In addition to that a notetaker has different
functionality than a laptop; it's more like a PDA and a device specific to
notetaking then a "braille computer" as some call it.  You can try using
that argument, and anyone else pitch in with their justifications too.  As
someone who has gone through the majority of their schooling, (upwards of
fourth grade) with access to a notetaker and a computer for work, I can
definitely say that both devices come in handy at different times and
sometimes the circumstances warrant the use of one device over the other.

Antonio, you're right.  I've showed the On-Hand to a few people who have
Humanware products and they've all seemed to like it.  I jokingly said to
someone that it was the real "Lightest and smallest notetaker on the
market," which of course is what Humanware claimed about the Apex for a
while, and they were shocked both at how little it was and how quiet and
well-oiled the keys seemed to be.  It was like the best of both worlds;
small size without the buttons getting stuck or the really loud noise given
off when typing a document.

On 7/13/13, Joseph C. Lininger <devnull-nabs-l at pcdesk.net> wrote:
> Antonio,
> I agree with you that note takers should have more features and 
> probably that they should be cheaper as well. The trouble as I 
> understand it has to do with economics.
> Specifically, market size. Let me provide the analysis that "officially"
> is used,
> then at the end I'll provide a couple of my thoughts.
> First, let's address new features. The reason the development of 
> technology is so fast paced in the non-adaptive world is because it 
> quite literally has to be. There are several companies, all of which 
> are competing for business in a particular field (web sites, phones, 
> laptops, etc.). There are also tons of consumers who want to purchase 
> and/or use those products. They're going to purchase and/or use what 
> ever has the most market appeal, of course. The companies, in 
> consequence, must continually create new products and update existing 
> ones to keep them relevant to the community.
> When looking at adaptive technology, note takers specifically, the 
> same situation doesn't really hold. There are only a few products, and 
> not a large market of people who want them. If you want to purchase a 
> note taker, you only have the option of purchasing one of the two or 
> three currently on the market. The manufacturers, then, only have to 
> compete against one or two others for your business. This problem is 
> further compounded by the fact that they probably don't have large 
> teams of software developers to add new features and such.
> As far as price, it's a similar problem. The cost of main stream 
> products drops because as a product becomes better known in the 
> market, more people purchase it. As more people purchase it, the cost 
> per unit drops and the company lowers the price in order to bring in 
> yet more people. This does not apply with technology which is only 
> designed to work for the blind community. There is a fixed market 
> size, which is considerably smaller than the main stream community. If 
> the price is lowered to far under those conditions, you end up with a 
> situation where it costs more to design and build the technology than 
> you make selling it.
> All of that being said, I think there is also the "this is always how 
> it's been"
> factor. It's always been the case that adaptive technology has 
> developed slower, and the technology costs over 10 times that of 
> mainstream technology with similar functionality. There is a hesitancy 
> to move from a slower development cycle with higher costs to one where 
> development happens faster and you have to pay more often, but the 
> costs are lower. I also think there's a factor I refer to as the 
> "agency"
> factor. that is, the manufacturers feel that most of the time, this 
> technology is purchased by voke rehab or some other agency. Therefore, 
> the price is not as big a factor as it otherwise might be since the 
> agency is likely to go ahead and pay it without too much protest. I'm 
> not saying voke rehab doesn't protest, but I am saying that the 
> manufacturers feel that eventually they will probably just go ahead 
> and pay so they can set the prices how they like.
> I'm not sure how much of each factor plays into it; I'd have to 
> collect market data to figure that out and I'm a computer Scientist, 
> not an economist.
> However, these
> are the factors which I believe cause and sustain the problem.
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/crazy4clarinet104%
> 40gmail.com
>


--
Kaiti

_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nabs-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/justin.williams2%40gmail
.com