Nancy, we're good. If I find such info or hopefully Bryan has some, it will help.
tnx, On Jul 12, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Nancy Miracle wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > The app currently does work just fine with the tethered Metrologic laser > scanner (in fact, it works exactly as the bcscan product does, but uses our > larger database). All you need to do is (as with bcscan), hook up the > metrologic to whatever you have that is Internet capable, that has a US > connection and that can supply enough power to drive the scanner. > > If you or anyone on this list has information about a bluetooth laser scanner > that you particularly like, please send it to me -- nmira...@gmail.com and > we'll take a look at it. > > Cordially, > Nancy > > > > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Bryan Smart <bryansm...@bryansmart.com> > wrote: > Actually, Scott, I'm not wishing for some high priced blind-only solution. > I'd be 100% satisfied if this app worked with a separate laser scanner that I > purchased at my own expense. Could get one of those for $300 or so, and it > would still come out cheaper than the blind-guy solutions. > > Communicating with a Bluetooth laser scanner is easy. Laser bar code > scanners, even ones that work over Bluetooth, are simple serial > communications devices. All of the brains for scanning a code are in the > scanner. Once it sees a code, it simply sends the raw code to the computer > (or iPhone), over a serial connection. In the case of Bluetooth, this > happens over the serial port profile, which has been around in Bluetooth > since the very first spec. > > So, the Digit-Eyes people simply need to open a connection to your Bluetooth > scanner over the serial port protocol, and sit/wait for a code to come in. > They already have lots of code in their program for attempting to extract bar > codes out of the camera images, and then pass the code to a web service that > returns the information. In the case of a Bluetooth scanner, such processing > isn't necessary. The scanner does the work for them. They just receive the > code, and pass it along to their web service. The programming is dirt simple, > compared to the rest of what is in this program. > > I'm glad that they're trying. I think that their bar code database has some > good value. I just don't think that a CCD camera is up to this task. That's > fine. I'll use my own laser scanner. I just want support for it, since the > camera won't work dependably. > > Bryan > > -----Original Message----- > From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Howell > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 9:23 PM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: A warning about Digit-Eyes > > 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. > > -- > 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.
