Well put.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lou Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Modern Radios & Accessibility


> 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
>