Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>

Having seen research examples of several haptic devices like
those mentioned in the article, I think the sighted theorists are
missing the big point.

they  totally missapprehend the linkage between their vision and
its ability to let them see an entire screen full of objects and
the sense of haptic contact the device may slightly enhance.

If it is a case of demonstrating the force required to cut
through skin, this may be valid because they can see how to
maneuver the knife in the entire environment.

However being able to feel the edges of windows objects is of
questionable use since we still can't get a quick picture of the
entire screen environment.

What the sightlings just don't get is that the reason GUI systems
are popular is that they can glance at the whole screen and make
rapid choices depending on that total view and many varriables in
it.

It doesn't make much difference that you can feel the edge of some
object if you don't have a rapid grasp of how that object relates
to the rest of the environment.

So far, until we have two dimentional tactile displays, we're
stuck with speech.  It's slow and linear and one dimentional.

It will always be slow and linear and one dimentional and thus
always mean a struggle to work by glance.

And, like so many overly optomistic views of technology, I've
heard just about the same claims for many years.

Ho Hum
tom Fowle


Net-Tamer V 1.13 Beta - Registered


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html