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