Hi.
I agree with the sentiment that a radio doesn't necessarily need to speak
to be accessible, but that is the easiest method to provide accessibility
on modern radios. A few of you probably remember the Ten Tec Triton IV
which was one of the easier radios to make accessible. All it took was an
audio oscillator across the ALC circuit to let you know when the ALC LED
lit, and a replacement dial skirt that was brailled--one dot for the 5 KHz
marks, two dots on the 10 KHz multiples and three dots on the 0 KHz mark
and with the crystal calibrator, that was all you needed to tell where you
were in the band. In my book, that was an accessible radio.
With respect to the current discussion on performance vs. accessibility, I
probably draw that line differently from some. Since most radios are
digitally synthesized rather than analog devices these days, that tends to
push accessibility measures towards higher technology than in yesteryear,
and I definitely want to be in control of all aspects of my radio. That is
especially true for me as I do not have the luxury of a sighted spouse or
family member to call over to read something, and I refuse to put out a bad
signal because of a poorly adjusted radio.
Performance is relative. There are fairly few radios that are as
insensitive or exhibit as poor selectivity or image rejection as the radios
that were commonplace back when I was first licensed. I will guarantee you
that nearly any radio on the market today will outperform the Heath HW16
that I started out with, and somehow I still made QSOs all over the world
with it. Tyhat being said, I feel that I can give a little on performance
to gain accessibility. The only area that I feel has gotten worse over the
last 30 years is in the area of strong signal overload, and since I live in
an urban environment, that is an issue that I pay attention
to. Fortunately, there are accessible radios that still exhibit good
strong signal performance--the Kenwood TS2000S for one.
I think the answer lies in what it is that frustrates you. If you need to
hear that DX signal in outer Mongolia who is running just enough power to
light a Christmas bulb, then probably you want the FT1000 series radios and
to heck with the accessibility. On the other hand, if you end up walking
away from the radio and turning on the TV or the computer because the radio
ties you up in knots because you can't figure what's turned off or on, or
at which level your gain controls are set at and you are on a first name
basis with your Official Observer, then you had probably better pay some
serious attention to accessibility. I think it also depends upon the
resourcefulness of the operator involved, along with what other physical
limitations might be involved. Some people are very clever about figuring
out ways around accessibility barriers, while others will get
flustered. That doesn't make one person right and the other person
wrong--it just makes the radio a poor choice for one person, while being
acceptable for the other. And in the example I cited above, I am an
otherwise healthy person who happens to be blind. If I had lost my vision
due to diabetes, and had neuropathy in my fingers, that solution that I
mentioned at the beginning of this message would not be a very good
solution at all.
That is what makes accessibility such a difficult issue--people have all
sorts of things that go wrong with them physically, and there is a whole
spectrum of impairments that result.
That's my two cents worth.
73,
--Lou K2LKK
Louis Kim Kline
A.R.S. K2LKK
Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Work e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Work Telephone: (585) 697-5740
|