Hi Tom,

Since the military removed the "flaw" which made the accuracy only 30 feet,
isn't the acuracy closer to nine feet now?  I thought I read that the
accuracy was three meters.

David Chittenden

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fowle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: technology for orientation.


> Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Peter and all,
> the problem gets more complex the more we look into it.
>
> Unfortunately GPS just is not going to be the universal wonder
> gizmo some thought it would be.
>
> In the best circumstances, when clear of structures, the best
> GPS can give you is about 30 feet accuracy.  good enough for in
> the block, but not for address finding.
>
>     In between big buildings, or not even so big, gps gets
> unreliable quickly.  It works better for cars because they're
> more often in the clear than pedestrians are.
>
> Besides 30 feet accuracy is fine for a car with sighted driver.
> It isn't so hot for a bat trying to find a door.
>
> do you want to walk down the center of the street just to get a
> better gps signal?
>
> At Smith-Kettlewell we have some very bright folks working on
> variousl camera based projects to do things like finding signs,
> and analyzing intersections.
>
> These are still pie in the sky projects, and personally I have
> not much faith we'll see usefull results from them in the next
> few years.
>
> computers rarely deal with the real world, reality is just too
> messy for the current primative state of software development. I
> have no signifficant hope for any camera/computer based device
> being able to be of any use at all in orientation/mobility in the
> next 5 years or more.
>
> I have some small hope for one of our other projects which is a
> reader for lcd displays.  Although I havn't yet seen it really
> work.  I think this is about as good as its going to get any time
> soon.
>
> I still believe a wide spread installation of Talking Signs holds
> out the best promise of providing blind folks with usefull
> orientation information.
>
> In a recent conversation I had with the president and other
> leaders of both Talking Signs INC. and Mitsubishi Precision who
> manufactures the equipment, I told them that now is the time to
> push and push hard to get the system installed on a very wide
> basis.  the product is now standardized so that installing it
> fits with much common infrastructure, electrical codes and the
> like.  There is still some work to be done teaching a lot of
> people to tune and properly record the signs, but that's comming
> along.
>
> There has been a necessary emphasis on establishing talking
> Signns  as a viable orientation system by putting them in
> politically corrrect places like municipal buildings etc. but who
> goes there every day.
>
> Now its time to get them in stores, on transit systems, and on
> street corners all over the place.
>
> If I thought any person carried system stood a chance of doing a
> better job in reality I'd say so.
>
> If I had to bet on such a person carried system without
> infrastructure, I'd take some kind of GPS based system with
> internal maps.  the ones presently available don't impress me
> much, after all they're built by the blindness business and
> therefore second rate at best, usually third rate.
>
> there is some small hope that traffic engineers are beginning to
> see that lots of the designs they've been using in the past 20
> years are very pedestrian unfriendly.  Perhaps some changes in
> general design towards more pedestrian friendly ness may help a
> bit in some areas.
>
> I've been told for so many years that cutting edge technology
> will help the blind, some day real soon!  With a very very few
> exceptions, it just isn't so!
>
> cutting edge technology as brought to the market place is for the
> masses, it is only cheap because they make them by the millions.
>
> I recently heard that the two largest manufacturers of cell
> phones each expect to sell two hundred million units in the next
> year.
>
> And there is not one single accessible cell phone out there for
> us despite promises.  Note, I didn't say you can't use some cell
> phones a little bit, I said there is not one which could really
> be called fully accessible.
>
> I also didn't say there is no hope, obviously technology can be
> very usefull indeed, it merely won't solve many of the big
> problems we face overnight.
>
> So far as I can see, from my 20 years as a rehab engineer, we
> will always be chasing the tails of the rest of the world.
>
> Of course, this is my very biased and rather cynical opinion only
> and most surely does not reflect the opinions of anybody else,
> particularly my employeers.
>
> Tom Fowle
>
>
> Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 - 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
>


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