Bryan, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you over the issue. I am not entirely disagreeing with you; however, I think you seem to take a pretty dim view of these people and tend to be more supportive of the "blind" products that cost more. My entire point to this discussion is that this may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than what is available, based on cost. I would gladly spend $30 on a product that is in development and may not even quite reach the same level as some of the "Blindness" products, then spend the $1,000 or more for the "Blindness" products. Then that is me and of course you do what works best for you. So, we can agree to disagree and move on to other topics, this thread has run its course as far as I am concerned. On Jul 10, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Bryan Smart wrote:
> Scott, my opinion is based on a product, not my opinion of a person. If it > takes $20,000 to plan, develop, test, document, market, and sell a program, I > charge $30 for it, and sell 700 copies, I've recovered my costs. Those 700 > people have already bought the program, so won't be buying it again. If it > will cost me $5,000 to upgrade or modify the app, but I'll basically be > giving those upgrades away for free, then I'm now $5,000 in the hole. I don't > go in to business to lose money. > > So, saying that there is no incentive to improve a program after everyone has > already bought it means that there is no financial incentive to upgrade a > program, and that is a matter of fact. You can argue that all day based on > emotional feelings about the matter, but no business will lose large sums of > money to please customers that have already bought the product. If they're an > individual, their family will complain loudly about the hardship. If they're > a private corporation, the bank will have words with them. If they're a > public corporation, their stock holders will vote them off the board of > directors. It doesn't matter what they say. That's how it is. > > Anyway, I'll add my vote for laser scanners support on the phone, not the web > site. If I wanted to use the web site, there is UPCDatabase, and many others. > I suppose that they're doing as best as can be accomplished with a camera, > but a camera is just not designed to work the way with bar codes that blind > people need to work. Please give us the option of a laser scanner. Some of us > aren't cheap. We just want the software to work well. > > Bryan > > -----Original Message----- > From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Howell > Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 5:45 AM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: A warning about Digit-Eyes > > Nancy, > > I neglected to comment on this statement, but I agree and that statement was > rather insulting. I have to say that as much participation as you and others > have demonstrated on these e-mail lists, shows a level of commitment. > I see lots of potential in this application and although I do not have one of > those bluetooth laser barcode readers, I have thought about it. Like I said, > for me it would just speed up the process, but then I suffer from lack of > patients. :) Although now that I have gotten better with scanning barcodes > with the camera, I have shorten the time it takes. However, I see the > bluetooth scanner as a way to potentially make it easier for vendor operators > to take inventory, possibly blind people to work in retail doing a number of > different tasks, and so forth. I see the scanner as a natural extension to > DigitEyes. Of course I sent you that article that I still see possibilities > with. I'm so full of ideas, but then some say I'm just full of it. :) > > On Jul 9, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Nancy Miracle wrote: > > > Actually, I'd disagree with that last statement. We have a lot of > incentive to improve it because we want our customers to be happy and if you > are not happy, we are not happy either. > > Nancy Miracle > Digital Miracles, L.L.C. > > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Bryan Smart > <bryansm...@bryansmart.com> wrote: > > > Yes; I'd be happy if they allowed us to use a Bluetooth laser > scanner. Even though a separate device would be required for the higher > quality scans, there are small scanners available. Beyond that, the important > fact is that the CPU portion (the iPhone), is very mobile. We can, today, use > a computer with a scanner to identify objects. Carrying a computer around the > house isn't handy. Carrying an iPhone to do the processing, though, isn't > that difficult. So, for me, there would still be value. > > I suggest that they retain the functionality with the built-in > camera, but allow Bluetooth scanning for those that can purchase a scanner. > > I'm not sure that I'm going to pursue a refund, but I'd > encourage others to withhold their money until the scanning quality has been > addressed. If you just buy the program as-is, they have little incentive to > improve it. > > Bryan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Howell > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:31 PM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: A warning about Digit-Eyes > > > Bryan, > > I have used this application successfully with several types of > packages. I have found cans to be particularly tricky. I can tell you that my > greatest success seem to be starting out with my 3GS against the item, and > once I started the scan, slowly back the phone away from the item. Again, > this worked for me on several items. I have not run all over the house > grabbing everything with a barcode, so I can't say that I have encountered > every possible packaging type and this refers to shiny packaging, different > color combinations, etc. I don't even know for sure if these are factors. I > agree it would be nice if an external laser barcode reader could be used > because this would seriously speed up the process of scanning items in a > store etc. I put that suggestion out there and not sure if it will be > considered or not. I realize carrying such a device does defeat some of the > purpose perhaps, but it does allow for additional opportunities, such as > someone who maintains inventory etc. Perhaps you have and if not, share your > experiences and suggestion. > On Jul 8, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Bryan Smart wrote: > > > I'm writing to share my experiences with Digit-Eyes. > > > > I tried it on my iPhone 4, with several bar codes, and it > didn't recognize even one of them. I don't mean that the code was located, > but not recognized. I mean that the code was not even detected as being in > the image. I'd tap the scan button, and the constant clicking would begin to > let me know that scanning was in progress. I was scanning in a brightly lit > room, and the screen curtain was not on. Rotating the containers in front of > the iPhone camera, with it held about a foot away from them, produced no > results. I had a sighted friend deliberately place the bar code in view, > something that I would have not been able to do on my own, and it wasn't > recognized, either. We just kept trying different angles, and rotating, but > all we got was more clicking from the Digit-Eyes scanner. > > > > I had some experience with creating a system like this > several years ago. At that time, CCD cameras were not as accurate. Even so, > for best results, we determined that a 3D laser scanner would be required in > order for bar codes to be detected in the way that a blind person is likely > to present them to the scanner: at angles, in shadow, etc. This is the > technique used by other commercial systems like the ID Mate. I was lead to > understand that this wasn't a concern with Digit-Eyes, due to the higher > quality camera in the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4. However, based on my results, > I'd say that this isn't so. > > > > Perhaps Digit-Eyes works better with dedicated labels, but, > if I were > > to make dedicated labels, I'd just create Braille labels. I > realize > > that everyone doesn't read Braille, and so audio labels still > might be > > of use to some people. However, the advertised function of > being able > > to read bar codes seems to not work, or else, it might work, > but > > requires a level of alignment precision that I've not been > able to > > achieve. I'm usually quite capable when it comes to reasoning > through > > these types of situations, so my conclusion is that I've > either > > overlooked something profound, or else the level of alignment > that is > > required for a good scan is grater than most blind people will > > independently obtain without assistance. If you need > assistance, you > > might as well ask the sighted person what is on the label. > *shrug* > > > > I'd like to hear the experiences of others. However, I can't > personally suggest that anyone spend the $30 that is charged for this app if > they expect to use it as a bar code scanner. > > > > Bryan > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:macvisionaries%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to > macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:macvisionaries%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to > macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:macvisionaries%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
