>Posted-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:05:54 -0500 (CDT)
>Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 18:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
>From: John W Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
>To: uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu
>Subject: Re: New type of text to Braille reader (long post)
>Reply-To: uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu
>Sender: owner-uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm John Roberts at NIST, and I just subscribed to this list (thanks to
>those who provided subscription information). Oliver Slattery and I are
>the people mentioned in the article on the wheel-based Braille display
>prototype. The posting by Daryle Gardner-Bonneau was forwarded to me,
>and I sent him a reply, which he suggested should be forwarded to this
>list.
>
>It appears there had been a slight misunderstanding on both sides,
>regarding the context of the article and the purpose of the prototype.
>Daryle was describing a real problem in accessibility device design.
>The article was in a magazine that is specifically focused on
>engineering issues, and the current prototype is intended to show that
>solutions to the engineering issues are feasible. What has been built
>is the basic output unit, operating under computer control, and the
>specific user controls are yet to be implemented. There has been some
>effort to interact with the users of Braille, but the main effort for
>interaction is starting now, when there is something specific that
>can be shown and discussed.
>
>I would like to know what potential users think of the wheel-based system,
>and would welcome suggestions on how it might be best implemented.
>
>Regards,
>John Roberts
>
>>Message to Daryle Gardner-Bonneau
>
>>Hello Daryle,
>
>>Your post was forwarded to me through a succession of people - I assume
>>it is about the NIST rotating-wheel based Braille display that was
>>announced September 22 at the Electronic Book '99 workshop.
>
>>Let me state that I am disappointed that you appear to have jumped to
>>these conclusions about the project without checking your facts -
>>I don't have any record of you trying to contact me to verify the
>>statements you made.
>
>>The design process was not even started without extensive research on
>>human sense and perception, and everything we could find on Braille and
>>Braille displays, including the advantages and disadvantages of various
>>features. We met several times with Curtis Chong, technology expert at
>>the National Federation of the Blind (who is a user of Braille displays
>>and other accessibility systems), and he showed us NFB's extensive
>>collection of existing Braille devices and discussed with us the features
>>and requirements of Braille devices.
>
>>We have also (prior to the workshop) discussed the concept of the
>>wheel-based display with several blind people who are heavily involved
>>in accessibility, including George Kerscher of the Daisy Consortium,
>>and Judy Dixon of the Library of Congress. I also gave a presentation
>>at the September meeting of the Universal Access Working Group in
>>Washington, D.C., at which several of the Braille-using participants
>>provided feedback. The general consensus we have received is that it
>>is an intriguing and potentially valuable idea, but that some issues
>>need to be resolved - we fully agree with this. The top issues thus
>>far are rapidly user-adjustable speed control for the wheel, general
>>user control of positioning within the text, and ways for the user
>>to easily be aware of where in the text the current reading point is.
>>There are also some engineering issues to be resolved - for example,
>>when George and Judy felt the operating prototype at the workshop,
>>they found that the surface roughness of the reading area and the
>>sharp edges of the dots made actual reading impractical, though they
>>could perceive how it would work with a suitable reading surface.
>>This is the kind of feedback we could not hope to get without
>>a working device for people to try. (And in this case, the problem is
>>something we can fix.)
>
>>The characterization of the current device as "a product or a full-
>>fledged prototype/mockup" is inaccurate. We have made extremely clear
>>that it only intended as a "proof of concept", to show something of
>>what a production device would be like, to show one of several ways
>>in which the engineering challenges might be met, and to give credibility
>>to the project. Only a small percentage of published ideas on Braille
>>displays ever make it to the hardware stage - if we had not built a
>>prototype, the chances are that the article in EE Times would never
>>have been written, and you would never have heard of the idea, and
>>I would never have had a chance to learn that you are a person who
>>might be able to contribute recommendations to the project.
>
>>The implication that interface design and human factors methods and
>>techniques have not been applied is inaccurate. We have experience with
>>user interfaces for electronic book readers, and attended the March
>>meeting of the Digital Talking Book standards project within NISO,
>>where we decided that since so much of the high-level user control
>>needs would be the same as for the wheel-based Braille reader, we
>>should not make any effort to come up with an independent and competing
>>set of user controls for the Braille reader. Enough was written in our
>>initial application to show that user control could in principle be
>>implemented, and our viewpoint is that except for controls that may
>>be totally specific to this design (such as wheel speed control), we
>>should just encourage development of user-friendly controls that conform
>>to the emerging standards. The participants at the UAWG meeting strongly
>>agreed that this was the way to go, and spoke favorably of the Alternate
>>Interface Interaction Protocol (AIIP) standard. Regarding the human
>>factors issues of reading a moving Braille display with a motionless
>>finger, please bear in mind that the wheel-based reader is a new
>>concept, and we won't really KNOW how well it works until there's
>>a prototype good enough for users to try it out. As I said, we have
>>researched the human sense of touch, have read about how people read
>>Braille and what the critical issues are, have watched people read
>>Braille and asked them what the critical factors are for them.
>>I have been informed that NIH conducted a study with moving Braille under
>>a motionless finger, and found that the majority of users could learn
>>to adapt to this mode of reading - I find this an encouraging sign
>>for the practicality of this design.
>
>>Also please note that this design is NOT primarily human factors driven -
>>it's a breakthrough engineering concept intended to address one of the
>>key problems with existing high-performance refreshable Braille displays -
>>the cost and reliability of the many hundreds of actuators required for
>>a full-line display. Our design can be built with three to sixteen
>>actuators (depending on the configuration chosen), and the initial goal
>>was to find a way to reduce the cost of a good performance display by
>>a factor of ten. Cost is one of the major impediments to more widespread
>>use of refreshable Braille, and if our work can put Braille displays
>>in the hands of a much greater number of users (without eliminating
>>the market for the conventional line displays), I think that
>>would be a worthwhile accomplishment. We're fully aware that human
>>factors is a problem that must be solved for this type of display to
>>be useful, and the ultimate criterion of whether it is successful is
>>whether it can be made to provide users with a worthwhile reading
>>experience, and whether it can provide cost and reliability improvements
>>that outweigh any inconveniences caused by the design approach.
>>The fact that there is a market for 1-cell and 8-cell Braille displays
>>(despite their lesser convenience for extended reading compared to full-line
>>displays) should serve to illustrate that cost (and not just human factors)
>>should be taken into account in designing a display, and that there is a
>>market for devices that may not be top-of-the-line in human factors, if
>>the price is attractive enough. It is certainly our hope that a rotating-
>>wheel display could be made that would be more user-friendly than a
>>1-cell or 8-cell line display.
>
>>In terms of reaching out to potential users and working with them,
>>it is necessary to consider time, resources, and how best to
>>achieve a useful interaction. I think we have done quite a bit, and plan
>>to do much more. You may have an exaggerated image of the size of our
>>project - it's a tiny project with a tiny budget, and those of us who
>>have worked on it have had other responsibilities as well. With the
>>human resources we have, it would have taken years and many times our
>>budget to do the formal preliminary user study you're talking about.
>>We have done what preliminary work with users we could within our
>>time and budget constraints, and got a working prototype and an
>>announcement out in time to get national attention. Having done this,
>>it may be considerably easier to contact users at accessibility
>>conferences, via publications, on the web, etc. in order to get useful
>>feedback. Also, our bosses are considerably happier about the project,
>>which gives us more time to find support, and a better chance that
>>it may actually result in a useful product that will help with information
>>accessibility.
>
>>I do not believe that we are "proceeding without ever looking back",
>>and in terms of user interface I do believe this to still be "the early
>>stages of the design process". A number of the blind people we contacted
>>earlier in development (not the people I named) basically wanted to start
>>testing beta versions right away, and were very disappointed when we had
>>to tell them that we did not yet have even the first prototype working.
>>I believe that we have timed the various stages of interaction with Braille
>>users about right, and look forward to expanding opportunities for
>interaction.
>
>>For example, if you believe interaction with Braille users to be important,
>>perhaps you could provide me with information on how to subscribe to the
>>lists on which you posted your message. I will also attempt to answer
>>questions you may have, and will welcome constructive suggestions.
>
>>Regards,
>>John Roberts
>>NIST
>>john.roberts@nist.gov
>>phone 301-975-5683
>
>>>Subject: Re: New type of text to Braille reader (fwd)
>>>From: JDNBonneau@cs.com
>>>To: uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu, access-l@icomm.ca
>>>Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:19:54 EDT
>>>
>>>I have problems with this scenario, too, but for different reasons. When
>>>will designers learn that they should talk to potential users and begin
>>>working with them on requirements development and prototype design BEFORE
>>>they roll out a product or even a full-fledged prototype/mockup?? They
make
>>>unwarranted assumptions about users and proceed without ever looking back.
>> I
>>>truly do not understand why user interface design and human factors methods
>>>and techniques are not applied, as they should be, in the early stages of
>>the
>>>design process. Every time I hear of another case of approaching the users
>>>after the fact, I see RED.
>>>
>>>Daryle Gardner-Bonneau
>>>
>>>JDNBonneau@cs.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:04 PST