Hi John,
I saw your drawing of the Reyburn Building and I thought it was very
good, and I agree that we have some tools now that make drawings easier
to create. I have made such drawings myself and have found that going
through the exercise has occasionally revealed relationships to me that
were not obvious at the outset. However, most sighted people don't do
much drawing of this type unless they are in particular educational or
occupational areas. Rather, sighted people are constantly using maps
of various types to orient themselves not just on highways and streets
but also in buildings and shopping malls. There was a directory and
map in our hotel that showed the locations of meeting rooms, for
example. We are missing this kind of reinforcement. I was not able,
for whatever reason, to ever develop a complete picture of our
convention hotel. I know for a fact that many other persons who feel
they are reasonably good travelers shared my experience. This is a
case where a basic drawing might prove of great help to blind people,
and I hope that perhaps someone might consider taking this on for next
year's convention. Even a basic drawing of the layout of the exhibit
hall might be useful to many blind people who don't normally consult
maps. From the convention list I picked up, it sounds as though such a
drawing may have existed this year, but I didn't see it. I found the
description of the exhibit hall layout to be very helpful, too.
John, beyond this note, I promise I won't continue to disrupt your
attempt at some serious thought on this subject. But before I cease my
disruptions, let me voice one final concern. I think we are finding
that the interpretation of graphics is actually more difficult than the
means by which we emboss or otherwise produce them. From talking to
people over the past few years, creating raised line maps from existing
map data is probably more time consuming in many cases than drawing
them from scratch using tracing techniques. If we come up with a
method of viewing graphics, whether it is by dividing information into
layers or something else, we also must find a way to achieve the
necessary processing of the image that makes it possible to do it in a
timely fashion.
Finally, and much more to the point, I have examined road maps with an
Optacon. When I do this, I find that I can screen out some clutter by
adjusting the Optacon's threshold. Because of this experience, I
believe you are correct that for best results, we need to be able to
switch on and off categories of information to help us get the
information of immediate concern. Physical and political maps of the
same geographic area are to some extent analogous to this concept.
Unfortunately, this suggests to me the need for a refreshable paperless
tactile graphical display, or a number of different paper versions of
the same drawing. Some kind of refreshable paperless tactile graphics
display would really open up some possibilities to control the
information that is being presented. Yet, I have long ago stopped
holding my breath for such a device. yet, I can see that driving
tactile drawings with software might make it easier to generate
alternate or layered views, so it's worth some thought. Again, sorry
for the disruption.
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:08:45 -0700 (PDT), John Miller wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>I heartily agree that we the blind need to increase our comfort reading
>tactile graphics
>and stimulate the production of every day useful graphical materials.
>The best way to get graphical materials into your every day life is to make
>them yourself.
>At the r&d meeting in Atlanta, I handed around a sketch
>of the Rayburn building floorplan. I did it with a screenboard and a pen.
>The first time I drew this sketch was at Washington Seminar after a half
>hour debate of just what the Rayburn building looked like.
>I walked all the hallways of the building and then drew the sketch
>to show the layout I had just traversed to my friends.
>I am all for back-of-the-napkin drawings.
>
>But I am going to stick to the problem I posed.
>I don't mean gate level diagrams of chips ready for layout, but there is
>lots of business and engineering graphics
>that with a littlle tweak could be made into a good tactile graphic.
>There is no braille equivalent for disseminating tactile graphics that
>compares to PDF for print graphics.
>And I think you are right, part of the reason is that automated
>reporduction is poor.
>John
>At 09:03 PM 7/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>John,
>>
>>Although I tend to lean in Harold's direction on this, I recognize
>>that my personal limitations may not be shared by others. I don't
>>know what your end goal is here, but it strikes me that it would take
>>a good deal of work to extract the information that you are requesting
>>here. Although I find your organization of graphical information into
>>layers to be a sound one, it is hard for me to conceive of a mechanism
>>to do it efficiently.
>>
>>Guys, maybe I'm just a little cranky tonight, it has been a long day.
>>I think, though, that there is much to be said about the learning
>>curve that is involved for many of us to maximize our potential when
>>it comes to absorbing graphical information. One thing that I find
>>frustrating is that I see very little increase in the production of
>>materials that would assist with this process. What I mean here is
>>not so much training materials as materials that could be used for
>>practical advantage. For example, it would have been very useful to
>>have some sort of rough map of the three levels of our convention
>>hotel that contain meeting rooms. In fact, this would be useful for
>>next year as well. As far as I know, there are no maps that provide
>>any more detail about the United States that are generally available
>>than those maps created by Howe Press and by the Illinois Braille and
>>Sight Saving School some fifty years ago. I personally find some
>>shortcomings in the American Printing House Atlas, but it is a good
>>effort. It is important that we look for solutions to the problems
>>associated with reading EKG's and that we also explore some of the
>>points you raise, but somehow practical uses of graphics and maps have
>>to find their way into our everyday lives as well.
>>
>>There is a lot of work that our R&D Committee does of which I am not
>>aware. Therefore, my comments are not meant to be a criticism of our
>>committee. Rather, my comments arise from my personal frustration
>>with the apparent gap between modern thought and technology and the
>>average or even the somewhat graphical oriented blind person on the
>>street. I hope a way can be found to fill this gap to some degree.
>>We need to see more information in a graphical form to better
>>understand what is useful or practical.
>>
>>On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:55:37 -0700 (PDT), Harold Snider wrote:
>>
>>>Dear John,
>>>I think you are asking the impossible! I believe that really
>>complicated visual
>>>images such as photos of "people playing volleyball on the beach" are
>>not
>>>replicable in a tactile format. The detail is simply far too
>>complicated to be
>>>useful. I think we need to get "real" about what is and what is not
>>possible
>>>within the realm of current technology and future technological
>>development. I
>>>think that this process is particularly difficult for those of us who
>>have never
>>>been able to see and thus have no visual memory. Personally, I have
>>difficulty
>>>reading anthing more than a bar graph or a very simple map. For
>>some of us
>>>there is really a huge learning curve that goes right along with the
>>problem of
>>>producing the raised image.
>>>
>>>Harold Snider
>>>
>>>John Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Robert Jaquiss and Curtis Chong created raised-line drawings
>>>> using the Phaser 600 and the tactile image enhancer of research
>>graphs
>>>> presented to me
>>>> by my colleagues. They modified the graphs in no way at all, and
>>just
>>>> raised up what they got.
>>>> The tactile image enhancer resolution was just too low for the task
>>at hand.
>>>> Although the phaser 600 results were promising, folks had feedback
>>>> at the NFB convention for how they could be made more legible.
>>>> I tell you, though, that if I have to do a half hour prep per
>>drawing,
>>>> force my colleagues to print graphs without grid lines and so-on,
>>or have
>>>> an assistant spend 30 minutes
>>>> cutting and painting braille fonts per graph, I'm better off asking
>>my
>>>> colleague what he drew
>>>> or having my assistant free hand a raised-line drawing.
>>>>
>>>> So to the thought experiment.
>>>> If an author wanted to include in a text document some bit-mapped
>>images
>>>> and accompanying raised-line drawing information, say, in a
>>>> tactile graphics standard format, what would the author's content
>>be for
>>>> the standard?
>>>> The first thing I would like to know if you handed me a 100 page
>>document
>>>> with some graphs in it
>>>> is the location of the graphs.
>>>> How tall and how wide is each graphic? On which page is it?
>>>> Within the format of each graphic, I would like the text labels in
>>an overlay
>>>> separable from the graphic itself.
>>>> I should be able to make a tactile image minus any confusing text
>>labels.
>>>> If grid lines are present, I should have the option to suppress
>>them.
>>>> The overlay should include characteristics that distinguish
>>different lines:
>>>> if they are dotted, made with stars, red, green, or whatever.
>>>> Of course, along with the text in the overlay would be its x-y
>>location.
>>>> I hsitate to suggest a field that includes the mathematical
>>function of the
>>>> thing drawn,
>>>> but sometimes when you go from the image of y = x^2 and thru all
>>the
>>>> resizing and resolution issues,
>>>> just telling the machine the analytical expression will generate
>>the best
>>>> results.
>>>> Last of all, a notes field, where the author might add
>>>> "This is a picture of about a thousand folks playing volleyball on
>>the beach.
>>>> Business as usual in San Diego".
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to open it up and ask all of you what you think
>>>> a tactile image standard would need so that SW could generate
>>>> files ready for braille where the results would make you happy more
>>times
>>>> than sad.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> *******************************************************************
>>>> * John Miller *
>>>> * CMRR-0401 *
>>>> * University of California, San Diego *
>>>> * 9500 Gilman Drive *
>>>> * La Jolla, CA 92093-0401 *
>>>> * *
>>>> * phone: (619) 822-2326 *
>>>> * fax (619) 534-2720 *
>>>> * email: jmiller@ucsd.edu *
>>>> *******************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>*******************************************************************
>* John Miller *
>* CMRR-0401 *
>* University of California, San Diego *
>* 9500 Gilman Drive *
>* La Jolla, CA 92093-0401 *
>* *
>* phone: (619) 822-2326 *
>* fax (619) 534-2720 *
>* email: jmiller@ucsd.edu *
>*******************************************************************
>
>
>
Steve Jacobson
E-mail: sojacobson@mmm.com
National Federation of the Blind
The Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the 3M Company
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:04 PST