THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

                            CONTENTS

                                                    JANUARY, 1992

INTRODUCTORY NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

THE U.S./CANADA CONFERENCE ON TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BLIND:
A MEETING OF HISTORIC IMPORTANCE
by Kenneth Jernigan

PANEL DISCUSSION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND CONSUMERS

Technology With Promise Not Yet in Hand by Tim Cranmer

Remarks by Euclid Herie

Remarks by Elliot Schreier

Remarks by Curtis Chong

TECHNOLOGY PRODUCERS PRESENT THEIR VIEWS: THE FIRST PANEL

Remarks by Tony Schenk

Remarks by James Bliss

Remarks by Raymond Kurzweil

Remarks by Deane Blazie

TECHNOLOGY PRODUCERS PRESENT THEIR VIEWS: THE SECOND PANEL

Remarks by Frank DiPalermo

Remarks by Jim Halliday

Remarks by Mohymen Saddeek

Remarks by Lawrence Boyd

DECISIONS AND FUTURE PLANS: THE SATURDAY MORNING SESSION

THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY
by Jim Halliday




     Copyright National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1992[2 PHOTOS of the National Center for the Blind. One is taken from
the corner of Johnson and Wells street and shows the new flag,
which stands on the roof behind the NFB sign. The other is taken
of the newly remodeled front entrance at night time, which shows
the new lighted awning/sign, railing work, steps, and ramp.
CAPTION: The National Center for the Blind was the site of the
1991 U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind,
September 19-21. Pictured above are the National Federation of
the Blind sign and the newly-erected illuminated flag pole on the
roof of the block-long facility. The new entrance, pictured
below, was completed about the time of the conference.
Illuminated at night, as shown here, the entire facade of the
National Center for the Blind is visible from Interstate 95.]

                INTRODUCTORY NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

     From time to time we devote an entire issue of the Braille
Monitor to a single topic. This is one of those times. The
U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind, which was
held at the National Center for the Blind September 19-21, 1991,
is one of the most significant occurrences ever to take place in
the blindness field. Therefore, it deserves the recognition which
such an event merits. Accordingly, this entire issue of the
Monitor is devoted to the proceedings of this historic
conference. In broad outline it reviews the past, details the
present, and charts the way for the future concerning technology
in the blindness field.

                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                                   December, 1991

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Pictured in the large conference room at the
National Center for the Blind are the members of the planning
committee of the U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the
Blind. Left to right, they are: Euclid Herie, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind; Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director of the National
Federation of the Blind; Susan Spungin, Associate Executive
Director for Program Services of the American Foundation for the
Blind; and William Wiener, President of the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually
Impaired.]     

       U.S./CANADA CONFERENCE ON TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BLIND:
                A MEETING OF HISTORIC IMPORTANCE
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

     From Thursday afternoon, September 19, through Saturday
morning, September 21, 1991, a meeting of historic importance was
held at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. Chaired,
organized, and hosted by the National Federation of the Blind,
this meeting (the U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the
Blind) brought together the largest number of leaders of
organizations of and for the blind and of manufacturers and
vendors of technology ever assembled in the blindness field. Real
progress was made in the areas of products, plans for research,
coordination, distribution, and availability--but the true
significance of the conference lay elsewhere. It was more in the
fact that the people who were present had come and that they had
gathered to try to find common ground for concerted action than
in the substance of the presentations and discussions. This is
not to underrate the interaction which took place or the
decisions made, for these were noteworthy in their own right.
Rather, it is to give perspective and focus to the real purpose
and accomplishments of the conference. Such a meeting of leaders
from the United States and Canada would have been unthinkable (in
fact, impossible) ten or even five years ago.
     The nature of what was achieved can best be shown by naming
the principal participants. It should be kept in mind that a
number of those who came as vice presidents are slated to become
presidents of their organizations in the near future:

David Andrews: Director, National Braille and Technology Center 
     for the Blind
Pierre-Paul Belanger: Executive Director, Quebec Division,   
     Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Deane Blazie: President, Blazie Engineering
James C. Bliss: President, TeleSensory, Inc.
Barbara Bowman: Vice President, Association of Instructional
     Resource Centers for the Visually Impaired
Lawrence H. Boyd: Principal and Director of Research, Berkeley
     Systems, Inc.
Nell Carney: Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services
     Administration
Curtis Chong: Senior Systems Programmer, IDS Financial Services
Guido Corona: IBM Canada Limited
Tim Cranmer: Chairman, Research and Development Committee,
     National Federation of the Blind
Frank Kurt Cylke: Director, National Library Service for the
     Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress
Frank DiPalermo: Product Planner, IBM Special Needs Systems
Judy Dixon: Consumer Relations Officer, National Library Service
     for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of
     Congress
Paul Edwards: First Vice President, American Council of the
     Blind
Jim Fruchterman: President, Arkenstone, Inc.
Don Garner: Director, Blind Rehabilitation Services, Veterans
     Administration
Doug Geoffray: President, GW Micro
Ruth Haggen: Vice President, American Thermoform Corporation
James C. Halliday: President, HumanWare, Inc.
Ted Henter: President, Henter-Joyce
Euclid Herie: President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian
     National Institute for the Blind
David Holladay: President, Raised Dot Computing
Kenneth Jernigan: Executive Director, National Federation of the
     Blind
Raymond Kurzweil: Board of Directors and Executive Committee,
     Xerox Imaging Systems; and Chairman, Kurzweil Applied
     Intelligence, Inc.
Ed Lazar: Manager, Assistive Technology Group, Digital Equipment
     Corporation
Chris Lowrie: Consumer, Nepean, Ontario, Canada
Marc Maurer: President, National Federation of the Blind
Dale McDaniel: Vice President of Marketing, Artic Technologies
William E. McLaughlin: Deputy Director, National Institute on
     Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Sue Melrose: Chairman, Division 5, Association for the Education
     and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired
Peter Merrill: President, BETACOM Group, Ontario, Canada
Charlene Muller: National Director of Rehabilitation and Program
     Planning, Canadian National Institute for the Blind
John Nelson: Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
     Rehabilitation Services Administration
Ralph Pacinelli: Regional Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services
     Administration
Lloyd Rasmussen: Senior Staff Engineer, National Library Service
     for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of
     Congress
Rachel Rosenbaum: Vice President, National Council of Private
     Agencies for the Blind; and Executive Director, Carroll
     Center for the Blind, Newton, Massachusetts
Noel Runyan: President, Personal Data Systems
Mohymen Saddeek: President, Technology for Independence, Inc.
LeRoy Saunders: President, American Council of the Blind
Tony Schenk: President, Enabling Technologies Company
Elliot Schreier: Director, National Technology Center, American
     Foundation for the Blind
R. Creig Slayton: President, National Council of State Agencies
     for the Blind, Inc.; and Director, Iowa Department for the
     Blind
Susan Spungin: Associate Executive Director for Program
     Services, American Foundation for the Blind
Graham Stoodley: Chairman, Technology Subcommittee, National
     Client Service Committee, Canadian National Institute for
     the Blind
Suzanne Swaffield: President, Association of State Educational
     Consultants for the Visually Impaired
Tuck Tinsley: President, American Printing House for the Blind
Jocelyne Tremblay: Director of Outside Quebec Services and
     Technical Aid Programs, Government of Quebec
Louis Tutt: Vice President, Council of Executives of American
     Residential Schools for the Visually Handicapped
Patrick Walsh: Treasurer and Director of Rehabilitation,
     Canadian National Institute for the Blind
William Wiener: President, Association for Education and
     Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired; and
     Chairman, Department of Blind Rehabilitation, Western
     Michigan University
Jack Wood: President, Index Printer Company of America, Inc.

     The conference was not a spur-of-the-moment affair. The
ground work was carefully laid, having been in progress for more
than three years. At the convention of the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired
held in Montreal in the summer of 1988, the National Federation
of the Blind announced that it would convene a meeting of
representative organizations and agencies in the blindness field
to consider means of working together to achieve common goals.
Accordingly, the first meeting of the Committee on Joint
Organizational Effort (JOE) was held in March of 1989 at the
National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. The following
organizations were represented:

      Association for Education and Rehabilitation
          of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER)
      American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
      Blinded Veterans Association (BVA)
      Canadian Council of the Blind (CCB)
      Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB)
      National Federation of the Blind (NFB)
      National Library Service for the Blind
          and Physically Handicapped (NLS)

     Dr. Susan Spungin, Associate Executive Director for Program
Services of the American Foundation for the Blind, was asked to
summarize the agreements reached at this first JOE meeting.
Relating to technology, Dr. Spungin's report said in part:

     To insure the availability of useful and necessary high and
low technology items that assist blind persons to be independent,
it becomes increasingly necessary to pool our respective talents
and resources in the area of technology in order to:
     a. take advantage of collective buying power;
     b. keep prices down through quantity buying;
     c. encourage manufacturers to continue production of low
volume items;
     d. encourage research, development, and marketing of new
products of value to blind persons; and
     e. explore the need for an information data base system.

     Although the notion of joint action on technology was
informally discussed by various groups during the following
months, no concerted implementation of the idea was undertaken
until the second meeting of the Committee on Joint Organizational
Effort, which occurred at the headquarters of the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind in Toronto in November of 1990.
At that time it was agreed that a conference on technology would
be convened by the National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore
at the National Center for the Blind sometime during 1991 and
that representative organizations and individuals from Canada and
the United States would be invited to attend. 
     As a first step a planning committee (consisting of Drs.
William Wiener, AER; Susan Spungin, AFB; Euclid Herie, CNIB; and
Kenneth Jernigan, NFB) was appointed to outline the proceedings
of the conference and consider who should be asked to attend.
     It was in this context that the U.S./Canada Conference on
Technology for the Blind was called to order at the National
Center for the Blind in Baltimore on September 19, 1991. I
chaired the conference, and the National Federation of the Blind
provided food and facilities. The first part of Thursday
afternoon was taken up with a panel by service providers and
consumers. This was followed by questions and discussion and then
by demonstrations of technology by vendors and an inspection of
the equipment at the National Braille and Technology Center for
the Blind. On Thursday evening a dinner took place in the dining
room at the National Center for the Blind, and on Friday morning
the vendors and manufacturers of technology joined the service
providers and consumers for a day-long exchange of ideas and
information.
     The latter part of Friday afternoon and all of Friday
evening were left unstructured to permit conference participants
to hold individual meetings and become better acquainted. The
conference concluded on Saturday morning with a meeting of
service providers and consumers to summarize what had been
accomplished and plan for the future.
     As has already been indicated, the conference was not solely
concerned with technology. For example, a resolution was passed
on Thursday afternoon recognizing that it would be helpful to the
blindness field if an international scholarly journal concerning
librarianship were produced. The National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped was asked to pursue the
establishment of such a journal, which would be "published at
least annually and which would include articles on topics related
to library service for blind and visually handicapped individuals
in the areas of Braille, audio, and service-related developments
and technologies." There was also a discussion concerning the
damage being done to the blind by the ABC television program
"Good and Evil," and a telegram was sent from the group calling
on ABC to cancel the program.
     As the conference drew to a close, plans were made to follow
up and expand on what had been accomplished. Among other things,
it was agreed that in another twelve to eighteen months a second
meeting of the U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind
would be convened by the NFB at the National Center for the Blind
in Baltimore.
     If I had to characterize the mood of the conference, I would
say that it was one of optimism, good will, and enthusiasm. There
seemed to be a general recognition of the fact that new balances
have been struck in the blindness field in North America and that
we have opportunities which would have been undreamed of only a
few years ago. New friendships were made, and new understandings
achieved. The implications for service providers and consumers
alike are far-reaching. Most important of all, this unity of
purpose and concerted action gives promise of more opportunity
and a better quality of life for the blind than we have ever
known. It remains for all of those who participated to continue
to work together to make the promise a reality.


[PHOTO: Dr. Jernigan (behind a microphone) and others seated at
the head table in the National Center for the Blind's conference
room. Both the NFB and Canadian flags are shown in the
background. CAPTION: Dr. Jernigan chairs the U.S./Canada
Conference on Technology for the Blind. To his left are seated
Drs. William Wiener and Susan Spungin. On his right is Dr. Euclid
Herie. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the
Blind, stands behind the group.]

       PANEL DISCUSSION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND CONSUMERS

     On Thursday afternoon, September 19, 1991, principal
representatives from service-providing and consumer organizations
in Canada and the United States met at the National Center for
the Blind in Baltimore, Maryland. They were joined later in the
day by senior management representatives from virtually all of
the significant producers and vendors of technology in the fields
of blindness and low vision. The consumers and service providers
talked and planned together during the first day of the
conference and listened to what the vendors and producers had to
say and demonstrate during the second. The conference concluded
Saturday morning, September 21, with the consumers and service
providers summarizing what had been accomplished and planning the
next steps. 
     What follows is a summary of these meetings. The complete
cassette recording of the conference is available from the
National Federation of the Blind at a cost of $40. Orders may be
made by contacting the Materials Center, National Federation of
the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Orders
must be accompanied by a purchase order or a check made payable
to the National Federation of the Blind. 
     Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director of the National
Federation of the Blind, opened the conference with welcoming
comments and housekeeping details. Mr. Marc Maurer, President of
the NFB, then welcomed the group by saying that meetings such as
this one were an important part of what the blind of the nation
had hoped might be accomplished when they began building the
National Center for the Blind. 
     Dr. Jernigan then invited the other members of the
Conference Planning Committee to speak. Dr. William Wiener,
President of the Association for Education and         
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER); Dr.
Euclid Herie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB); and Dr. Susan
Spungin, Associate Executive Director for Program           
Services of the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), all
expressed their pleasure in welcoming conference participants and
their conviction that important new steps in mutually beneficial
activity and discussion were about to occur. Dr. Spungin said
that this was one of the first tangible manifestations of the
work of the Joint Organizational Effort Committee, and she hoped
that its success would promise much for the future. 
     Dr. Jernigan then introduced the first member of the panel
of presenters scheduled to begin the conference, Dr. Tim Cranmer,
chairman of the Research and Development Committee of the
National Federation of the Blind. 

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Tim Cranmer.]

             TECHNOLOGY WITH PROMISE NOT YET IN HAND
                         by Tim Cranmer

     Back in the days of my adolescence (before television,
before the medium was the message) I sometimes played a game with
a friend in which I would ask, "If you were handed a microphone
connected to all of the radio stations in the world so that you
could speak to all humanity for a few  minutes, what would you
say?"  The reason I posed this question to my friend was my wish
that she would ask me the same. She did. And I never quite
succeeded  in composing the perfect presentation for the world
audience. I could not have imagined at that time fifty years ago
that one day I would be given the opportunity to speak to an
assemblage of world-class leaders and policymakers from the U.S.
and Canada responsible for initiating or directing applications
of technology in the lives of blind men and women for generations
to come. And now that this moment has come, what is my message?
     This: Listen to consumers; respond to consumers; coordinate
your efforts with consumers. We are the blind, and we have opened
channels of communication dedicated to specific interests--
including the subject of this conference. The NFB in Computer
Science Division and the NFB Research and Development Committee
are but two examples. A tangible evidence of our commitment is
the National Braille and Technology Center for the Blind, which
you will see more of later today. Through our president, Mr. Marc
Maurer, and our executive director, Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, you can
gain access to these and other resources to assist you in all
technical matters impacting the lives of blind men and women in
our two countries.
     While I still have in hand the microphone to the world (at
least, it is the mike to the world of technology), it seems only
fair that I should cite some specific examples of technical
problems in need of our unified attention.
     First, a low-tech conundrum to ponder: We who are blind do
not now have the tactile equivalent of a pen or lead pencil.
Arguably the most useful implement ever designed by humans, the
pencil in one or more of its variations will be found in every
country and virtually every household on Earth. Father of the
book, precursor of the printing press, the pencil remains modern
man's most ubiquitous tool--but we don't have a tactile version.
Please assume that I know about and use all or most of the
implements employed by blind individuals to perform some of the
tasks assigned to the lead pencil. Don't assume that these
special-purpose instruments singly or collectively serve as an
adequate substitute for the "universal marker."
     The pencil's utility assures it a permanent role in far-
ranging human activities. Besides its most obvious uses of
writing and drawing, pencils are used for making marks of other
kinds and for many other purposes. Craftsmen of every sort mark
their work for cutting, assembling, or other manipulations. But
wait! I must resist this impulse to enumerate the uses of the
pencil. I need say no more than this: A pencil lets its owner
make marks of infinite design and meaning on surfaces and
materials of nearly infinite properties. We who are blind lack
the tool that would let us match this performance.
     The slate, stylus, and other embossers serve us well for
literary purposes. It is the general purpose mark that eludes us.
We can't now make the thin, thick, high, low, straight, crooked
tactile marks we require to model graphic communications. A mark
that clings but can be removed; the tactile mark that lasts and
lasts without destroying or damaging the surface on which it is
placed; and all this with the same convenience and facility
inherent in the pen and pencil.
     Why don't we have a tactile pencil? Can it be that the
technology required to build it doesn't exist? Or is it that we
just don't know about suitable technologies? If we can describe
the properties of the end product (a tactile pencil), then
perhaps we can design the materials and develop the new
techniques to meet the specifications. If we can't come up with
the answers, then we should look outside of our disciplines to
engage other resources. More on this thought later.
     With a mere flick of the finger and a light year leap in
thought, let me focus your attention on the most pressing problem
confronting blind people today. It's Braille. This is not the
place, and I am not the expert, to examine factors contributing
to its decline in recent decades. Let us here consider one small
but very important element that will contribute to wider
acceptance and greater use of Braille. I refer to a full-page
refreshable Braille display.
     Fullest participation by blind men and women in an
information-based society requires unlimited access to print
through Braille. To achieve this we must design a better Braille
display. A better Braille display is a bigger, cheaper, faster
display. This full-page Braille display is the missing link to
fuller participation by blind people in social and vocational
activities. An idealized Braille display will enable us to build
optimized print access devices like true print-to-Braille
converters that deserve to be called reading machines.
     Let me describe one such machine. Excuse me if I omit or
gloss over some essential technical details. It's about a foot
square and a couple of inches thick. It weighs three or four
pounds. It looks a little like a lap-top computer except that
there is no evidence of a computer screen--indeed there isn't
one. But look more closely, and you can see that the top surface
of the machine is actually a blank Braille display. On the side
of the machine there is a slot into which you can place a disk
containing hundreds of books. Once the disk is inserted, the top
of the machine springs into life and displays the name and other
information about the library of books on the disk. Press a
button on the side of the unit to display in Braille page after
page of the table of contents, an index, or menu--or press
another button to jump forward to the selection you choose by
touching the associated Braille line on the display. Change the
disk and the top of the machine becomes a Braille display of the
jacket information of the new book or collection.
     These disks would probably be CD-ROMS if we had the machine
today--but if we wait a while, the disks may be of a different
sort. That's progress for you. The full-page Braille display will
work just as well regardless of the medium used for the input--
which reminds me of the attachment.
     It is difficult to imagine a time when print books will
become obsolete. They have far too many advantages over any other
storage system to be discarded by society. So we need a book-
handling attachment that can leaf through a book of most any kind
and control the Braille display of the main unit in the same way
described for the disk-based information. We are in luck here.
There is a big demand in the commercial market for handling books
by data entry systems. We need only wait for the commercial
interests to invent the book processing caddy--surely by the turn
of the century. The book handler should be here by the time we
finish designing our refreshable Braille display. Did I mention
that everything on the display will be properly formatted in
Grade Two Braille?
     Is there a computer in the main unit box or the book
handling attachment? People in the know, like you and me, will
figure that out--but the school kids and non-technical adults
will never ask or care. To them it will just be the Braille
machine that lets them read as all literate people should.
     How can we move from our present limited one-line Braille
displays to the multiline electronic Braille we must have? After
decades of working with designs for small, one-line displays, we
have gained enough experience and insight to arrive at the point
where we believe that we know what research needs to be done that
will result in practical full-page Braille displays. We can now
describe the physical properties of the materials that must be
located or designed to make our goal achievable. The technical
hurdles to be overcome are insignificant in comparison to the
achievements of researchers working in the larger world of
science--now oblivious and thus not much occupied with our little
problems.
     Small as our research needs might appear to society at
large, they have so far proved to be insurmountable by the
commercial firms in the blindness market which have pursued their
solution. This situation might well obtain for years to come
unless we can somehow muster a combined effort.
     Somehow we must tap the resources of industry and
universities skilled in exploring physical properties of diverse
materials and substances to identify those with characteristics
with promise of application to our projects. We can no longer
afford to rely on serendipity to deliver up useful technologies
to manufacturers in our field. Instead, let's provide the
incentives and leadership sufficient to involve the larger
scientific community. It may be necessary to do more than explore
existing technologies and materials. The physical sciences have
gleaned enough knowledge of matter at the molecular level to make
it possible to design new materials for our applications. If we
develop specifications, there are others capable of designing the
blueprints and still others to build the polymers, alloys,
microchips, and other elements necessary to produce a tactile
pencil, a full-page Braille display, and the other tools the
future may demand.
     One example of new technology may be instructive:
Ferroelectric semiconductor materials are just now coming to the
public's attention. At least one paper describing the
piezoelectric properties of ferroelectric compounds was presented
at the spring meeting of the Materials Research Society. The
first widespread use of this technology seems to be in
manufacture of high-speed non-volatile random access memories for
computers. Some computer buffs are already talking about FRAMs.
These new materials have another attraction for us. They exhibit
dimensional changes in the presence of an electric field. Tiny
actuators can be fashioned from ferroelectric elements without
relying on bulky solenoids, coils, iron, or other devices that
have foiled earlier efforts to design large arrays of Braille dot
drivers.
     Doctor Dennis Polla of the University of Minnesota in
Minneapolis is engaged in developing micro-actuators based on
ferroelectric films. These subminiature components are too small
for our use. But with three magnitudes of enlargement, we arrive
at mili-actuators which may indeed raise and lower dots on a
tactile display.
     Recent conversations with Dr. Polla reinforce our
expectation that the piezoelectric properties of ferroelectric
materials may prove useful in creating large Braille arrays.
     Too little is known about members of this chemical compound
class. We are not aware of any systematic investigation of
ferroelectrics to identify one or more compounds with
piezoelectric or photoelectric properties, electromechanical
behavior, or combinations of these that would recommend it for
further study and possible application in a large Braille
display. Thousands of these compounds invite our attention. And
if none is suited to our purpose, perhaps we could learn enough
to establish guides for the right materials scientist to custom
design a usable compound. At present there seems but little
economic incentive or inspiration to activate the right scientist
to pursue this course of investigation.
     I feel an obligation to bring to the attention of this
conference a pending loss of technology. Most of you doubtless
know of the Pixelmaster printer--the machine that deposits solid
plastic material on paper--manufactured by Howtek of Hudson, New
Hampshire. I brought with me a few samples of print, Braille, and
drawings made with it in case they are wanted. NFB advised Howtek
on ways to improve the design of the Pixelmaster that would make
it useful to blind people. They accepted some of our
recommendations, the ones that did not require hardware changes.
For our part, we designed Braille fonts that could be installed
in the machine so that it could be used to produce solid-dot
Braille. Our final font included the graphic characters used to
draw boxes and other figures. This font, never published, is
available from NFB on request.
     The Braille produced on the Pixelmaster is barely
acceptable, and the tactile drawings it makes are of marginal
use. Furthermore, Howtek has discontinued manufacture of the
product. So why mention it at all? The Pixelmaster is based on a
technology with profound implications for the education and
employment of blind people. A machine designed for the blind that
optimizes the variables controlling deposit of the solid material
could produce high-quality Braille and raised line drawings with
three useful dimensions and varied textures. Furthermore, this
good Braille and high-quality 3D tactile drawings may be created
on a computer screen or taken from large stores of standard text
and "clip art" libraries. Tens of thousands of maps would become
immediately available, produced as needed from standard data
bases.
     The thermal plastic "ink" used in the Pixelmaster is but one
example of a technology with potential for producing three-
dimensional solid forms suitable for representing Braille
characters and raised lines. We selected it for discussion here
because we are most familiar with it. Other technologies that
invite investigation include phase transition polymer gels,
ballistic particle deposition, and stereolithography. If you are
interested in pursuing any of these, we can give you the first
crumb on the trail that leads to the scientists in the forefront
of each field.
     The Pixelmaster potential has not been realized--nor does it
now appear likely to be. It is lost to my generation--and may be
lost to the next, unless some joint effort is mounted. The non-
profit organizations serving the blind may be hard pressed to
make the financial commitment to develop the ideal solid material
embosser. The relatively small commercial manufacturers and
vendors serving the blindness industry are not likely to see this
as a viable investment. Perhaps we should consider adapting the
research consortium models now in place in the U.S. and several
other countries. On the other hand, the right writer could get a
million-dollar grant to exploit this opportunity.
     It seems that my lot in life has been, and will remain, tied
up with the manipulation of the nuts and bolts that must be
fitted together to make a technology for the blind. I am content
with my place. A larger role in technology for the blind is left
to you. It rests upon the shoulders of the participants in this
conference to find the way to mobilize and direct our resources
to the greatest advantage for all blind men and women. While the
details are yet unclear, this conference is evidence that the
National Federation of the Blind will remain in the forefront of
technology and will meet the demands of leadership in this field
as it has for more than a half century in the social, economic,
and political life of the blind.

     Dr. Jernigan next introduced Dr. Euclid Herie, President of
the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. 

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Euclid Herie.]
     
     Dr. Herie: The CNIB began in 1918, modeled after the Royal
National Institute for the Blind in Great Britain. Its central
headquarters are in Toronto, with ten executive directors in
operating divisions and about sixty to sixty-five field offices
scattered throughout Canada. In Quebec the CNIB operates services
other than rehabilitation in partnership with the provincial
government. 
     The CNIB takes advantage of technology developed in the U.S.
and elsewhere in the world. Although the service community for
the blind in Canada seldom engages in technological research,
lately a scientific calculator was developed in Quebec, and the
IRIS, a large-print reading device, was developed in Montreal by
a local organization for the blind. One modest attempt to
encourage technological research and development has been the
establishment of the CNIB's Winston-Gordon Prize for
Technological Advancement. It's a $10,000 purse with a two-ounce
twenty-four-karat gold medal. A bank note reader with voice
output is currently being perfected by the Bank of Canada. 
     A few years ago, at the invitation of the NFB, the CNIB
began to audit meetings of the NFB Research and Development
Committee, chaired by Dr. Tim Cranmer. 
     In 1986 the CNIB was mandated to serve visually impaired
Canadians in addition to those who are legally blind. The CNIB is
completing plans to establish a technology center in each part of
Canada within the CNIB's major service centers. We are trying to
establish a national data base on technology and to begin a
national inventory system showing the location and usefulness of
CNIB-owned technology. Neither project is yet implemented. We
have also tried to establish an international network on
technology. We hope that this conference will help in this effort
and that the day will come when all of us will be connected to a
shared database, to a shared body of knowledge, and to shared R
and D resources and purchasing power. We can help the
distributors and  developers of these products to know what our
priorities are.
     The other side of the coin is the importance of limiting the
waste of investment by agencies, governments, and individuals in
technology that proves impractical or unusable. These errors are
very costly to agencies, and consumers are also deeply concerned
about the economics of technology. In the recent AER survey, in
which the CNIB participated, to no one's surprise consumers were
most interested in knowing what technology is available and
affordable. 
     The CNIB now distributes the Kurzweil Reading Machine, but
some consumers and competitors are understandably concerned that
the CNIB will not be impartial or objective and could stifle
healthy competition and even the availability of alternative
aids. However, there is also the danger that, particularly with
expensive technology, if some entity is not prepared to invest,
the market will never develop because of individual unwillingness
to risk perennial resources on the unknown. 
     There are painful examples of unsuccessful efforts to create
inexpensive alternatives to high-quality, high-cost items: the
Taj Brailler and the Clark and Smith cassette player, for
example. When agencies commit funds for technology that does not
do what its makers promise, they must be held accountable. They
must be sure that they spend our money well. This is an exciting
time technologically, and many people from other countries would
have liked to be present at this conference. They are asking how
soon the results will be available. So we must do our work well. 

     Dr. Jernigan then made an announcement before introducing
the next speaker. The NFB plans soon to have available a new
eight-digit small calculator, which has no clock or calendar and
which will sell for about thirty dollars. The NFB will also be
selling a twelve-digit calculator for not more than thirty-six
dollars. There is also a new, inexpensive talking watch that is
already in production and will be available soon. 
     He then commented on the question of pooling resources to
purchase things more inexpensively. There are two kinds of
purchasing. One can be pooled, and the other can't. An example of
the first is the consortium which the American Foundation for the
Blind, the National Federation of the Blind, and others put
together when the original Sharp talking clocks went off the
market. The group of purchasers was large enough to bring the
clock back into production. The other, less tractable type of
purchasing is that of a product like Braille paper or cassettes.
One must buy a very great amount in order to get a significant
price reduction. If a group pooled its purchasing to get the
savings, one member would have to warehouse, divide, and ship the
smaller orders to the other pool members, and the cost reduction
would be eaten away. These are matters for ongoing discussion. 
     Dr. Jernigan then introduced Elliot Schreier, Director of
the American Foundation for the Blind's National Technology
Center. Dr. Jernigan commented that the AFB has had a long and
noteworthy record of manufacturing and selling products for blind
people. They were engaged in this effort before most of us were
even thinking about the subject. 

     Mr. Schreier: The American Foundation for the Blind
involvement in both product distribution and development dates
back some sixty or seventy years to the early stages of the
Talking Book Program and the development of the players that were
used back then. We're involved today in both high-tech and low-
tech development. 
     We have a National Technology Center, established in 1986,
which disseminates information about product availability, cost,
product evaluation. This last is the study in our labs of similar
products designed for the same task. The results are published in
the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. We evaluate how
well the equipment lives up to the manufacturer's claims. Some
readers want to know which unit to buy; others just want to know
what questions to ask. 
     We are also involved, and have been for some time, in
research and development. We develop products that are used by
blind and visually impaired people. 
     Another data base that we maintain and that has become very
important is our Careers and Technology Information Bank. This is
a group of about 1,400 people, either blind or visually impaired,
who volunteer to network. We interview them extensively. They can
then serve as evaluators for us, but more important, many of them
are willing to talk with people who are using the same kind of
equipment and are having difficulty. We publish the job titles of
the people in this data bank, though we maintain their
confidentiality. This list demonstrates that blind people can do
about anything, and it has been very useful to us. 
     We have a model machine shop, in which in the last few years
we designed and developed the AFB Superfold Cane (a design using
O-rings) and a Kiddy Cane with features suggested to us by
orientation and mobility instructors. We undertake the
modification of tools and instruments such as the Braille
micrometer. We also modify games like Connect Four and
Backgammon. 
     In the past year we've introduced a low vision cutting board
that is black on one side and white on the other, a fairly simple
idea that came from a rehabilitation specialist from Canada. We
also produce custom-designed check stencils. Although both of
these are simple, low-tech items, AFB needed a high-tech welding
device to fuse one side of the cutting board with the other. For
the check stencils we use a commercial numerically-controlled
milling machine which is programmed by computer for each job.
     In the last two years, at the request of the Johnson and
Johnson Company, AFB has developed the Touch and Talk, an add-on
to Life-Scan's blood glucose analyzer.
     We have just introduced a newer version of our talking
clinical, air, and oven thermometer. In the last two weeks we
have finished a blood pressure meter that mimics the print
display with voice output.
     There are many factors to balance in order to decide the
value of each research request and project. Project ideas can
come from consumers, staff, corporations, or other service
providers. To determine the order in which new products will be
undertaken, the staff considers such matters as the size and age
of the target population and the staff time and budget needed for
production. The answers to such questions help the staff
determine its priorities in allocating limited resources. 
     Following the model of our publications department, we are
now moving our order fulfillment from an internal American
Foundation for the Blind operation to an external organization. 
     AFB has found these difficulties in dealing with technology:
     Sharing knowledge with consumers: The individual consumer
still lacks knowledge about the technology that is available. How
do we circulate information, especially to the largest growing
segments of the blindness population--elderly people and
children?
     Sharing knowledge with providers to avoid duplication of R
and D efforts: A few years ago AFB decided to stop work on
developing a glucose analyzer for diabetics because another
producer was working on the same project. However, a few months
later the other company also discontinued its efforts. Therefore,
it was several years before diabetics had this device available.
     Funding issues: How can we narrow the gap between the AFB's
talking thermometer costing $235 and the commercial thermometer
available everywhere for $9.95? Economies of scale are involved
here, but there are things that we can address at the conference
that can have an impact. We have a low-interest loan program for
consumers, as does the NFB. I think that's an idea that we can
expand upon and perhaps fund the development of new products as
well.
     Maintenance issues: If we distribute a product manufactured
by the ABC corporation, we might not necessarily provide
maintenance and support for it. So two years down the road, where
is the consumer to go for repairs or replacement of worn parts?
In some cases the manufacturer is overseas, so we must arrange
for methods of insuring that maintenance is available over the
life of the equipment. 
     Inaccessible instructions: The manufacturers of many
products are interested in their profits. As a result the
instructions for a talking calculator from Hong Kong are probably
not going to be accessible to blind users. 
     Products for low-incidence populations: Deaf-blind and other
multiply handicapped individuals often have needs for which one-
of-a-kind solutions are the only ones, and there are very few
people, very few organizations that are involved in product
development for them. Very young children today, those born to
drug-addicted parents or saved very early in premature births,
have a high incidence of multiple disabilities including
blindness. We need to address ways of developing modular
approaches to educational products, games, etc. And we in the
group here are probably the best in the country, and perhaps in
the world, at being able to develop systems and procedures to
ensure that their technology needs are met. 
     Other access issues include access to automatic teller
machines and graphical interfaces with new computer programs. We
here can work together and pressure other groups to make sure
that access to technology for blind people is maintained or
developed. I hope that as a group and informally we will talk
about these things in the next two days and begin to work
collaboratively. 
     
     Before introducing the final member of the first panel, Dr.
Jernigan mentioned that he could demonstrate for those who might
be interested a prototype of a device called Colormate, which the
NFB is working on with a Japanese company. It can identify
fifteen colors and acts as a sophisticated light detector,
distinguishing between degrees of light intensity. He then
introduced Curtis Chong, a Systems Support Specialist for IDS
Financial Services in Minneapolis. Dr. Jernigan characterized Mr.
Chong as having one of the most fertile and inventive minds in
the field. 

[PHOTO: Curtis Chong seated at conference room table. CAPTION:
Curtis Chong.]

     Mr. Chong: All of us here have spent lots of time at
conferences talking about technology, but we haven't given much
attention to defining it. Technology certainly includes not only
complex computers, but also the so-called low-tech equipment that
people don't think of as computer-connected. My wife would return
our microwave if I told her that it was a computer. 
     There has been some discussion of appropriate technology.
How do we know if a given piece of equipment is useful to blind
people? I am not a professional in the field of work with the
blind. I'm just a regular blind person, working, doing a job,
trying to get by as best I can. But in my simple view the way to
determine good technology is to ask the people who have to use
it--the consumers. If a product comes on the market and the
consumers don't like it and don't buy it, it isn't good. If it
comes out and they buy it and use it, it is good. 
     One thing I've noticed in this field over the years is the
phenomenal growth in our ability to produce Braille. We can get
more Braille from more places than ever before. For under $7,000
anyone can now set up a relatively decent Braille transcription
system for literary information and have a person doing it who
has absolutely no knowledge of Braille.
     Pretty soon we will even get mathematics produced in Braille
by people who don't necessarily know Nemeth Code. This is, to my
mind, a trend that we should encourage. 
     If I could dream for a minute, it would really be nice if
there were a piece of technology that could take printed
information, without any human intervention, and automatically
convert it into nicely formatted, properly footnoted and paged
Grade II Braille with a table of contents. I think we have the
programming technology and the artificial intelligence, and with
the price of computers going down, we'll see it happen in the
years to come.
     One of my biggest frustrations today, working on my own
computer and Brailling my own word-processing files, is that I
must still keep one copy for Braille and one for print. In the
long run this duplication is not acceptable. 
     There is one principle that should be kept in mind when
contemplating technology for the blind. Sometime ago a
representative from Honeywell came to my family to ask what sort
of thermostat should be developed for the blind. I said that the
first mistake is thinking you need to develop a special
thermostat. It would be preferable, even ideal, if the regular
thermostat you sell had some slight modifications to make it
convenient for a blind person to use. Instead of making a device
specifically for the blind, make a thermostat in the millions
(which would keep its cost way down), and its raised markings
would be usable by blind purchasers. 
     I bought a phone-answering machine that is generally
available for under $100. It was not produced for blind people,
but all of its programming has voice output for the user's
convenience. 
     One of my greatest frustrations about high tech is that none
of the personal computers, particularly the IBM PC, is what I
would call user-friendly. It's not the kind of thing an
unsophisticated, non-machine-oriented person can sit down with
and feel comfortable using. It doesn't talk when it's supposed
to. It gives you cryptic responses like "C:\>." Nobody needs to
know or understand that C:. People who have to use computers for
their jobs must spend weeks and months learning about operating
and screen review systems.
     With the advances we have made in programming and artificial
intelligence, it should be simple to do away with this nonsense.
This problem is endemic in the larger sighted market as well.
People will demand that computers give them what they want
without their having to program it. One day my wife, who says she
will not use a computer until hell freezes over, should be able
to sit in front of a computer and never notice that she's using
one, just like her microwave oven. 
     The consumer's primary role in technology development is to
tell people who are working in the field what we want. But 
whatever technology is developed must have reasonable pricing as
a primary goal. I appreciate the Foundation's developing a $200
talking thermometer, if my job depends on using it. But a person
who just needs a thermometer to read her kid's temperature
probably won't want to pay $200. There's got to be a way to get
that cost way down so that we don't always wind up paying more
for ordinary day-to-day appliances than sighted folks do.
     Finally I want to say that a key consideration in any
technology development for blind people is what kind of image it
projects. If the technology reinforces the old attitudes that the
public usually has about the incompetence of the blind and tends
to encourage blind people to be helpless, it's not, in my
opinion, good technology. If not, at least it has one thing going
for it that would indicate that it's good.
     And I give you back four minutes, Dr. Jernigan. 

     Dr. Wiener began the discussion section of the afternoon by
commenting on Dr. Cranmer's speech:

     Dr. Wiener: I was just at the International Mobility
Conference in Madrid. While in discussion with Don Parks,
inventor of the NOMAD, a slate map that can be programmed with a
voice synthesizer, I mentioned I'd be at this conference and
asked what technology he'd recommend as the most helpful. He
responded that some kind of device that would generate a solid
dot outline would be useful--something similar to the
Pixelmaster, which, as Dr. Cranmer said, is going out of
production. It must be easily combined with a computer, as the
Pixelmaster is. Don went on, "Something that would be even more
helpful would be a pen that would draw a raised line."  He told
me that there was a pen at one time, made by a French company, I
think. He said, "It wasn't terribly good, but it did the job." 
That has been lost to us, too.
     One more point, on the need for getting more input from
consumers: As part of our process of getting ready for this
conference, we have put a survey out to AER and NFB members.
Euclid Herie says CNIB has circulated a similar survey based on
the same questionnaire. Later on we'll share the results. One of
the top priorities we're finding is that consumers, while they
are very grateful for the reading machines and the optical
character recognition (OCR) technology, are saying that the
readers need to be more flexible and able to do more things. The
idea of a full-page Braille display is something that would be
beneficial to everybody, so I concur with Dr. Cranmer's remarks,
and I think we're right on target.

     Dr. Jernigan then distributed both Braille and print copies
of a proposed resolution for group consideration. Here is the
text:

     WHEREAS, library service and its related components of
materials and delivery have become central issues in the lives of
blind people in today's information-oriented society; and
     WHEREAS, many publications cover the issues of blindness,
but no national or international publication deals specifically
with library service, its innovations, developments, and
technologies; now, therefore,
     BE IT RESOLVED by the participants in the U.S./Canada
Conference on Technology for the Blind, meeting at the National
Center for the Blind in Baltimore, Maryland, this nineteenth day
of September, 1991, that a void presently exists in the field of
blindness, which would be filled by an ongoing publication, such
publication to be a high-quality, scholarly effort that would
make significant contributions to the body of knowledge presently
available to the world of librarianship; and
     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Library Service for
the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) of the Library of
Congress be urged to pursue the establishment of such an
international journal, to be published at least annually, which
would include articles on topics related to library service for
blind and physically handicapped individuals in the areas of
Braille, audio, and service-related developments and
technologies; and
     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such a publication should be
planned and overseen by a Board of Editors broadly representative
of the blindness field, the publication to seek and consider
submissions from all parts of the field in all countries in the
interest of providing an arena for wide-ranging viewpoints; and
     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Library Service for
the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) of the Library of
Congress be asked to implement the provisions of this resolution.

     A motion to adopt was moved and seconded, and after a brief
discussion it passed unanimously.
     Dr. Cranmer then made an announcement. A new device by Sony
called the Dataman is now available. It is a hand-held, battery-
operated device which stores on a disc and then reads one hundred 
digitized paperback books. Elliot Schreier reports that AFB will
modify it.

     Dr. Spungin: To my mind, the most important need that came
out of all the speeches was the need for vendors to share with
each other the products they're working on so that they can avoid
duplication and keep costs down. I think there must be ways to do
that, to share. We at AFB have been burned on several occasions
in that we did start something and dropped it because another
producer was also working on it. Then they dropped the project.
There has to be a way of preventing the expense of start-up costs
twice over or three times, if one of the two original producers 
finally manufactures the item. If we could pool our ideas and
decide what was needed and persuade vendors that we would buy a
product that met the specs we drew up, we would conserve
resources for everyone. 

     Dr. Jernigan: Let me combine two things--what you, Dr.
Spungin, just said with what Dr. Cranmer said earlier. Suppose we
in this group--and we have represented here an overwhelming
number of the U.S. and Canadian decision-makers in the blindness
field--were to pool the collective force of our buying power. We
could do one of two things, it seems to me. 
     We could: 1) pool research efforts and parcel them out,
and/or 2) set standards. One group could be assigned to do
research in a given area; and, more to the point, we could set up
standards for what we want: We would like this and this, and the
vendor who will produce to these standards will get our business-
-and we'll recommend that product to all of our groups. That's a
possibility! If we did that, the vendors would come along
quickly, because that's where the money would be.

     Mr. Edwards then commented that he thought there was a need
for a Braille-scanning device that would read single-sided and
interpoint Braille into a computer. One has been developed in
Europe, but it does not yet work well. He offered to discuss this
idea further with interested participants. 
     He also mentioned the problem of technology warranties that
are too expensive for individual blind purchasers to maintain.
Some attention should be given to this problem. 
     He said that new computer technology should not move blind
users further away from the mainstream of computer users. This
has happened in recent years with the advent of products that are
not interfaceable. 
     Finally, Mr. Edwards said, everyone must put pressure on
vendors to provide documentation for both adaptive and mainstream
software in accessible formats. Every product on the market
should have an ASCII file version of the documentation available
on disc to any purchaser if he or she wants it. 
     Mr. Cylke raised the question of whether what Dr. Spungin
proposed was possible. The free market demands that competitors
fight until one knocks out the other in the competition to create
a particular product. It may be impossible for consumers and
service providers to arrange the kind of producer cooperation
that would seem to be most sensible and efficient. Curtis Chong's
notion that persuading producers to modify products slightly so
that blind people can use those sold to the general public is the
ideal model. But the most important thing is to establish a
consensus about what is needed. Mr. Cylke continued by commenting
that Paul Edwards had said that a Braille scanner is necessary.
Maybe it is, but maybe not. However, this group ought to be able
to determine in broad terms what is most important, less
important, and least important. Then we can approach the
producers to persuade them to modify their products. At this
conference some attention should be paid to the way in which
actual consumer preferences can be determined. 
 
     Dr. Jernigan asked Bill Wiener to discuss the AER survey 
that was recently conducted.

     Dr. Wiener: In the spring of 1990, a questionnaire was
developed from submissions by the Joint Organizational Effort
(JOE) Committee and was written by Toni Heinze (past president of
the  Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind
and Visually Impaired) to find out what the service providers and
consumers felt was important.
     The process is not complete yet. We still have surveys
coming in from NFB members every day. But let me share with you a
little bit of the findings. 
     Approximately 121 AER members returned surveys; NFB members
returned 283. Approximately 400 people responded. There were
eleven open-ended questions. In most cases people were listing
what they felt was most important in the area of technology. Toni
and I put together a list of about twenty items to summarize the
widely varied responses:
     1. Better, more flexible, cheaper scanners (reading
machines) should be produced for reading books. If possible, they
should be portable.
     2. Computer graphic displays should be accessible through
Braille and speech. Use of icons in programs like Windows makes
the miserable C-prompt look user-friendly by comparison because
the icons are not easily translatable to speech or Braille and
constitute a step away from accessible technology.
     3. Adaptations in many common appliances are needed--color
contrast, Braille markings, or the addition of speech. 
     4. Consumers want adaptations in computers--cheaper lap tops
with Braille and speech and more software options.
     5. Catalogs in Braille and speech, especially those on new
technology items, should be produced.
     6. Respondents called for a consumer perspective in product
evaluation and consumer ideas to provide for applications.
     7. A lending service for aids, appliances, and other devices
to provide hands-on trials was a very popular idea.
     8. Some respondents called for expanded radio reading
services.
     9. Respondents want service information by toll-free number.
The goal is fewer delays in obtaining and repairing items. 
     10. Fully accessible, easily understood manuals for new
appliances should be available in Braille or on computer disk.
     11. Adapted, accessible, cost-effective health aids are
needed, especially blood sugar monitors and insulin gauges with
Braille or speech.
     12. TDDs and TTYs with Braille input/output are needed.
     13. Deaf-blind people need writing and editing devices. 
     14. Consumers want CCTVs and other optical devices that are
better, more efficient, lighter weight, and even self-focusing.
     15. People want better, more available transportation. This
subject came up consistently even though it wasn't on the
questionnaire, but many people were reporting that transportation
was keeping them out of the mainstream.
     16. Some respondents would like to operate equipment by
spoken command. 
     17. Much more Braille and synthetic speech should be
available, e.g., talking signs with locations, signs that give
prices in stores, and VCRs that speak.
     18. Consumers want more use of CD-ROM.
     19. Automatic teller machines and point-of-sale machines
should be made much more accessible. Respondents object to
membranes on the keypads.
     20. And to show there's lots of creativity out there,
respondents suggested self-mixing chocolate chip cookies and a
robot self-driven car.
     A lot of the items that people asked for are already on the
market. Our information delivery system isn't really connecting.
What we have put together here is a starting point. There are too
many open-ended questions. 

     One of the Canadian participants reported that the CNIB has
sixty returned questionnaires in hand at the moment, which report
the same information. The main things are affordability and
accessibility. Many respondents want a trial/loaner program. It's
clear they don't know what's already out there.


            TECHNOLOGY PRODUCERS PRESENT THEIR VIEWS:
                         THE FIRST PANEL

     Dr. Jernigan introduced the Friday morning, September 20,
session of the U.S./Canada Technology Conference by announcing
that in order to allow everyone on the agenda to speak and still
leave time for discussion and vendor demonstrations in the
Braille and Technology Center, he would be forced to hold the
clock on each presenter. He pointed out that this conference was
a historic event because it was the first time that virtually all
the producers, vendors, service providers, and consumer
representatives were gathered under one roof, talking to each
other. For the first time those with the power and the
perspective to make decisions were exchanging ideas,
contemplating joint activity, and getting to know one another. 
     He then introduced the morning's first speaker, Tony Schenk,
president of Enabling Technologies. 

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Tony Schenk.]

     Mr. Schenk: My company specializes in the development of
Braille embossers and Braille production equipment. In the late
60s company founders developed a very small, very portable,
attache-case-sized device to help a blind engineer on staff. It
produced Braille on a paper tape strip, and it evolved into the
first full page embosser, the LED 120--a real workhorse through
most of the 70s. This provided access to Braille production and
to computer programming and other applications that had not been
previously available to the blind. 
     The next step was the development of high-speed embossing
products. We produced two early devices, funded in development
through contracts with the National Library Service for the Blind
and Physically Handicapped (NLS). The first was the heavy plate-
embossing device, the PED 30, designed to expedite the production
of the zinc metal plate masters for press Braille, used to
produce most Braille books. 
     The second was our high-speed interpoint Braille embosser,
the TED 600. Projects of this type are really not feasible to
develop on an entrepreneurial basis because it typically takes
one to two years for orders to begin coming in and there are
relatively few orders in this small corner of the technology
market. Development requires some assistance either from grants
or from large organizations.
     The experience gained from the initial project can then be
applied to devices that are lighter, more portable, and higher
speed due to modern components and assembly processes. But the
same basic limitations apply: lower-speed devices use less power
and can sometimes use batteries; higher speed devices require a
great deal more power and more attention in order to run.
     Technology purchasers should not allow economic
considerations alone to determine which machines they buy. We
hate to see anyone buy a machine that is too small for the
requirements being placed on it.
     One thing we'd like to hear from a group such as this is
feedback on our new products. We have three in development right
now. It takes one to one-and-a-half years for us to design and
bring a new product to market. Your demand for it can change in
that time. But the high cost of development can be offset in many
cases by strong commitment in the field itself to staying with
the new product designs in which interest was originally
expressed. 
     I am curious, for example: Would you prefer a single
embosser with high speed, high performance (300 characters per
second), at $40,000 or two devices, 150 characters per second,
but $20,000 for the pair? One advantage with multiple devices is
more up time during maintenance procedures. 

     Dr. Jernigan then asked Mr. Schenk if he was in a position
to describe some of the things Enabling Technologies has on the
drawing board. Mr. Schenk said that they are at the high end of
the production scale--heavy-duty, rapid-production embossers.    
Dr. Jernigan then pointed out that it is hard for would-be
purchasers to commit to particular products or express
preferences without knowing what a manufacturer is planning. If
the producer is loath to give any details, then there is no way
of breaking into the current circle, and the manufacturers will
have to be content with rolling the dice. Dr. Jernigan then made
a comment in passing to the effect that some interest had been
expressed in finding ways to establish standards so that some
technology could be interchangeable as it is not today. He
suggested that the consumers and providers at this meeting are
certainly interested in considering the pooling of buyer
resources and greater commitment to purchasing future equipment. 
     Dr. Jernigan then introduced Dr. James Bliss, President of
TeleSensory of Mountain View, California. 

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of James Bliss.]

     Dr. Bliss: I'd like to thank the NFB and the Joint
Organizational Effort Committee for bringing us all together. A
meeting like this has been needed for some time.
     The conference materials suggest that our objective is to
insure the availability of useful and necessary high- and low-
technology items that enable blind people to be independent. This
is particularly important in an era of budget-cutting that
threatens some technology development and in an era of software
advances that threaten blind people's access to information. I
would like to describe several areas in which we can all take
action that would produce significant results. 
     1) Financing: The Optacon, which we introduced twenty years
ago, ushered in a new era. In the early 70s, when we began
distributing Optacons, very few blind people were in office jobs.
Government policy for job accommodation meant many Optacons were
bought by state departments of education. Fifteen years later,
when we produced the Optacon II, we found the most eager new
customers were past users; however, now they were employed people
and not clients of state vocational rehabilitation agencies. They
still needed assistance with their purchases. Fortunately, as the 
result of a gift we were able to offer a financing plan with a
subsidized interest rate that was very successful. There have
been other such plans, but there is still a great need out there.
I believe that banks and other lending institutions discriminate
in this kind of loan. When they hear that it is for a piece of
technology for a blind person, they are afraid of the negative
publicity if they were to repossess, so they refuse to make the
loan, which is a form of discrimination. 
     I think that, if we work together, we could solve this
problem; and that would certainly improve the availability of
technology for blind people. 
     2) Training, Service, and Technical Support: These are
really critical. They are expensive, and too often they are not
taken seriously enough at the beginning. But if the new user is
not trained properly and if the equipment is not maintained,
everyone will be disappointed, and a downward spiral will begin.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) will open up new jobs
as it comes on line, especially if we can provide training and
technical support for the necessary adaptive equipment.
     3) Reimbursement Loopholes: The largest group affected is
senior citizens. Closed-circuit technology advances, even in the
last year or so, have resulted in enhanced effectiveness. In many
cases this is becoming the best approach to solving their reading
and writing problems, but vendors are reaching only a small
segment of the population who would benefit from this technology.
Canada is ahead of us in developing a reimbursement system. I
believe, if we can agree that this is a worthwhile cause, a joint
effort of service providers, consumers, and vendors would have a
good chance of getting reimbursement for this kind of equipment,
perhaps through Medicare.
     Deaf-blind people constitute a reimbursement problem at the
other end of the scale. There are very few of them, but they have
an immense need for face-to-face and telephone communication. But
since employment is not likely to be a result, rehabilitation
funds are not readily available for meeting the need. Some years
ago we produced the TeleBraille, but because the population is so
small, we had to have a grant to support the project. The second
model of the TeleBraille came out this year, and development was
only possible with help from the Smith-Kettlewell Foundation.
There is a critical need for this technology, but it is
effectively available only in certain states. In California,
through funding from telephone billing, money is available for
reimbursing the cost of such communications devices for deaf
people. Very few other states provide anything comparable.
     5) State Sales Tax: This is an inequity because it all
depends  on chance and where the manufacturer is located. Some
states exempt products for people with some other disabilities.
Exempting this equipment from sales tax is probably the quickest,
most significant way the cost of devices could be reduced.
Whenever vocational rehabilitation agencies are paying for
equipment that includes sales tax, the Federal government is
putting money directly into state coffers instead of into
rehabilitation equipment. 
     Tim Cranmer's paper is excellent. He mentioned a number of
the technology challenges that lie ahead. I'd add access to the
graphical user interface and the trend toward multimedia in
presenting information, which includes audio, visual displays,
and animation. This will be an opportunity and a super challenge
for us. We have a lot ahead of us, and I really like seeing the
cooperation. 

     Dr. Jernigan: The NFB recently inaugurated a technology loan
fund, which is chaired by Curtis Chong. We began it with a rather
modest amount of $30,000. We charge 3% interest, and we don't try
to set the same standards banks do. We intend to put at least
what we would regard as massive new infusions of cash into that
fund.
     The NFB is also establishing a technology museum. We have an 
LED 120 in there, and we have one of Dr. Bliss's early machines.
We invite anyone to put technology into the National Braille and
Technology Center, and all of you are invited to make use of that
Center. You may come and demonstrate your equipment in comparison
with any competitor's product, or you are welcome to come and
hold conferences or meetings here. We'll provide facilities at no
charge to you. We make the Center available as a base for
teaching purposes. We also have David Andrews on the staff. He is
becoming knowledgeable in all the technology we have as fast as
he can. We'll be glad to respond by phone to people who may want
to ask questions about evaluation or raise other technology
issues.   

     Before introducing the next speaker, Dr. Jernigan again
mentioned the idea of consumers and providers pooling their funds
to affect the technology-production choices being made. The other
possibility might be to expand the funds available for low-
interest technology loans. He warned that the group should not
leave without making some tentative decisions that would put
flesh and bone to its ideas. 
     Dr. Jernigan then said: The next speaker is Dr. Raymond
Kurzweil, member of the Board of Directors and Executive
Committee of Xerox Imaging Systems and Chairman of Kurzweil
Applied Intelligence, Inc. He has made considerable contribution
to this field. The Kurzweil Reader, shall I say, speaks for
itself. 

     Dr. Kurzweil: I'll be brief. One lesson I learned through my
association with the NFB is that technology is an enabling force,
for it assists in access to knowledge. We're now entering what I
sometimes call the Second Industrial Revolution, in which 
machines have become amplifiers of our mental abilities.
Knowledge and learning information are really the cornerstones of
wealth and power, so equal access to information is crucial to
being competitive in society today. We should use technology only
where it's necessary. Throughout my career in this field, there
have been flurries of interest in mobility devices, and I've
always felt that the ordinary cane, which is technologically
simple, is, in fact, very sophisticated and sufficient for the
job. 
     Let me cite another lesson that I have learned from my
association with the NFB, which I've incorporated extensively in
my career, both in technology for the disabled and outside that
field: Let users design the product.
     My experience with the Kurzweil Reading Machine will
illustrate my point. I had a crude prototype of the KRM when I
approached NFB for funding. Dr. Jernigan said that he thought it
was worthwhile. He said, "We'll help you out, but we want
something in return. That is, we want to design your product. We
want to set up an independent testing program, and we're not just
going to test the machine off in a corner somewhere and send you
a report that you will file away. We will want our people to move
in and direct your research and development and design the
product."
     We thought that was interesting but didn't know what it
would entail. We proceeded with it anyway. Together with the NFB,
we raised  about a quarter of a million dollars. Michael Hingson
of the NFB ran the testing, and other members were actively
involved. Essentially they set the priorities for our research
and development effort. We felt that we had designed the product
to be useable and discovered that was not the case. Some of the
assumptions we made were quite erroneous because we were not
going to be users of the machine and therefore did not approach
it in the same way. One of the first things Michael Hingson said
was "These Braille-labeled keys have to go. We're going to be
using this machine constantly; we don't need Braille labels." As
a result of consumer involvement, we developed a way of
navigating the keys through voice and made their organization
more logical. Priorities were set for character recognition, for
what kind of cues were needed in machine operation, and for
keeping the user informed about machine functioning. The NFB
developed a whole way of understanding the spatial layout of a
page so that it could be articulated efficiently.
     The machine was really transformed. It's now been through
five generations, but the user interface is really the same one
the NFB originally defined. I've used the lesson I learned with
the KRM. It has become my trademark; users should design the
product. Technologists can develop a prototype, but to convert
that into a finished product, which is where 80% of the money
goes, you need to be guided by the people who are going to use
it.  
     One of my new endeavors uses speech recognition. This is the
opposite idea from the KRM. It converts speech into text. This
can be a print display for the deaf or Braille for a deaf-blind
person. We plan to incorporate users in the design of this
equipment. 
     My recommendation for this group is the adoption of formal
testing programs in the early stages of design. This does not
mean that the manufacturer says, "Oh yeah, we have a couple of
blind employees, and they're going to help us test this machine."
It means a formal testing program with an outside organization
empowered to represent the intended consumers. And it should have
an independent influence on the market. In this particular
marketplace, the NFB was very well positioned because it was a
strong independent organization, clearly influential in this
area. As a result, the members of the testing group had clout
with our engineers, so they and our marketing people followed the
consumer recommendations. 
     I'd like to see specific funding created to encourage more
of this kind of interaction. It's crucial. I attribute a lot of
the success of the Kurzweil Reading Machine to that experience.
     Another key point is financing. We've developed an
innovative program through the generosity of the American
Foundation for the Blind and Xerox. This loan fund made
$2,000,000 available at four percent for long-term loans, and
credit requirements are less stringent than going to an ordinary
bank. 
     I sat last night at dinner next to Elliot Schreier, who
oversees this program at the AFB. He gave me the remarkable
statistic that not only have there been no defaults so far in
this program, but no late payments. Pretty incredible!
     The loan fund has clearly been helpful. It distresses me
that more people can't access this equipment. However, here's a
remarkable fact: anything based on silicon technology drops in
price by half every eighteen months. It's an eleven-percent
reduction every three months, and that remarkable phenomenon is
continuing.
     Dr. Jernigan mentioned standardization. I think that's
crucial. Increasingly these machines will interact with each
other: a reading machine connected to a PC to other information-
based services to a portable Braille display to a Braille
embossing device. We need to establish clear standards on how
this information should be exchanged.
     Finally, I would call for research on mastering graphic user
interfaces. We've mastered character-based display. Graphic user
interfaces like the Macintosh and Windows present more of a
challenge because there is more information and it's not in
characters. I've seen some innovative research in which various
acoustic signals are used, but more work needs to be done.  

     Dr. Jernigan: Now I want to introduce Deane Blazie,
President of Blazie Engineering. He also has a long and honorable
record in this field. I think that he is more responsive to the
wishes, needs, and opinions of consumers than many producers.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Deane Blazie speaking into a microphone. CAPTION:
Deane Blazie.]

     Mr. Blazie: I'd like to talk about technology for the blind:
yesterday, today, and tomorrow. To get a better idea of where we
can go as a group, it's important to look at yesterday. My
involvement began in 1963. I was in high school and was asked to
work for Tim Cranmer. Tim and I lived in the same town, and we
were both ham radio operators. At a club meeting he asked if I
wanted to work for him on Saturdays. So I did, for the next six
or seven years. This was also my first introduction to the NFB. I
remember, in 1963, talking with Tim. One of the things he told me
was that he attributed his success in life more to the NFB than
to any other thing. I think today's a good example of the
continued force that the NFB is in this field.
     In 1968 I sold Page Markers, which put a low frequency tone
on tapes. At that time they were made by hand. I must have made
twenty or thirty of them. In 1974 we sold audio-tactile stop
watches with a Braille display, another invention of Dr.
Cranmer's.
     In 1976 I started Maryland Computer Services. In 1977 we
introduced the first talking telephone directory for the blind.
It cost about $10,000, by the way. In 1978 we provided the
TotalTalk, which was the first full speech talking terminal
available. It was about $7,000. In 1982 TotalTalk II and
Information Through Speech (ITS), which were essentially talking
personal computers, came on the market, and they were about
$12,000. In 1983 we introduced the Cranmer 
Modified Perkins Brailler, probably the first low-cost Braille
printer available. In 1984 we introduced TotalTalk PC, $5,000.
Notice how things are going down in price. In 1985 we introduced
the VP, another talking computer, about $3,000. 
     In 1986 MCS ceased to exist and was sold to Enabling
Technologies. At that point I started Blazie Engineering. All
this gave me a new start without a lot of the baggage that we as
a company had accumulated over our ten-year history. It gave me a 
new idea on pricing and a fresh look at marketing, which is most
difficult in our field. One way to get prices down is by volume.
I also developed new ideas on distribution channels.
     In 1987 we introduced the Braille 'n Speak at the NFB
convention. It sold for what it does now, about $900. It had more
memory, is faster, and has better speech than any of the
computers I just mentioned, including the $12,000 one. That shows
how the prices came down in ten years.
     I certainly agree with everyone that user input is
absolutely necessary. In 1990 we introduced the Braille Blazer,
an affordable Braille embosser with speech built in.
     Today we're introducing for the first time in public the
Braille 'n Speak 640. This has 640K of memory, is a little bit
smaller, goes a little longer on its batteries, has more
capability built in, and is priced proportionally to the old
Braille 'n Speak.
     Today a person can purchase a complete system including a
Braille 'n Speak, a Braille embosser, an ink printer, and a
modem, which gives access to virtually any information wanted in
speech or Braille, for under $3,200. For kids in school it's
phenomenal what a difference such a system can make in their
lives. You can add a personal computer to that for less than
$2,000, and you'll have even more.
     What's coming tomorrow in 1992? I think there will be less
expensive optical character recognition systems, the reading
machines. By 1993 a device like the Braille 'n Speak with a
Braille display that will sell for under $3,000 is possible. By
1995 a full-page Braille display could be here. There's been lots
of talk, and it still isn't here, but it is going to happen. 
     I'd like to talk about what makes up the price of a product.
For a typical product in this market thirty to forty percent of
the cost, maybe less, is in the actual expense of building the
product, the cost of goods. General administrative expenses are
20 to 30%. Sales and marketing costs account for about 30%.
     If you have added that up, it doesn't leave a lot for
profit. Typically we like to clear fifteen percent profit. I
think right now, if you took all the companies in the industry
and added all the profits, you would have a negative number. For
this past year it would definitely be a negative number. If a
person does make a profit, it's 5% or less. That's a problem.
     There are some things we as vendors can do about the
manufacturing on our own. We can plan for volume as we did with
the Braille Blazer instead of building one or two. We designed
the product to make it inexpensive. When we built the Braille 'n
Speak, we did not use bent metal cases but injection molded
plastic ones. It cost a lot of money in the beginning for the
mold. If you're willing to spend ten or twenty or thirty thousand
dollars for an injection mold, you'll save a lot of money over
the life of the product. With the Braille 'n Speak, the case was
$30 apiece early on, but now it is about $1.25. 
     We can use off-shore labor, which costs much less. We can
work a lot smarter: design things to be easier and less expensive
to build. Instead of four circuit boards, the Braille 'n Speak
has just one. 
     To keep general administration costs down, we can locate in
low cost areas. Keep the company lean and simple. I learned from
Maryland Computer Services; it's easy to hire a lot of people who
don't really produce. Keep your employees happy; employee
turnaround costs a lot.
     Marketing is about thirty percent of our costs,  but it
should be 18%. That's what it is in the wider industry for
marketing products like ours. But this is a difficult market to
reach. You can help us figure out ways to reduce that cost. The
NFB Technology Center is a big help. A lot of people come through
here every day and see that equipment. It's a great way to reduce
our marketing costs because we don't have to make individual
sales calls. Canada's a good example; it is a very difficult
place to market because it is so huge with a low population
density. The CNIB centers could be great demonstration points. 
     You could help us publicize our products in your
publications. You can help us distribute literature about our
products. I know it's up to us to give you the literature, but
you could make that space available to us.
     You can help us fight injustice, when we know government
agencies are buying equipment that they really don't want and
that the users don't want, but some sighted people in those
agencies make a deal with some vendors and buy the equipment
anyway. The NFB is certainly fighting that.
     You can hold us accountable for our products. If you get a
bad product from us, send it back. Don't moan and groan about it-
-demand a refund. Don't put up with bad support or bad service.
     Financing like the NFB loan fund and the AFB fund is a great
idea. That's the single greatest detriment to consumers' buying
our products. A lot of people just can't afford to buy them. I
think that co-op research and development's a great idea, if we
can find a way to work around problems of competition.
     One last note: sales tax--we don't have to charge any
because we're located in Maryland, where there is no sales tax on
products for the blind. Many states do this, but vendors don't
know it and charge the tax.

     Dr. Jernigan: Here's an example of a very simple technology
problem. Somebody asked us to get him a checkerboard, a very
simple thing. It's been available for hundreds of years. We
looked around and found a man making them by hand and charging
$28 per board. I thought, this is crazy. Let's go get some
injection molding and turn out checkerboards by the thousands, so
we will have that problem, at least, solved forever. So I talked
with a guy. He said for $30,000-plus, he could make a mold, then
for some more cash he could make chess pieces. I went downstairs
to our Materials Center. They said we sell twenty or twenty-five
boards a year. And I said to myself, is it because they cost $28
or because people don't want them? We didn't put the $30,000 into
this project. Call it low tech if you want to, but a checker
board has brought a great deal of comfort to many through the
years. I'd be glad to have a good one. I give you that to think
about.
     Another thing to think about is what Deane Blazie said. A
number of us here have publications. Our Braille Monitor
circulation is now just over 30,000 a month. We could
systematically put in more advertising. If all of us here wished
to, we could all publish more about technology.

     David Holladay (President, Raised Dot Computing): Very, very
good points. Every time a new product comes out, for about six
months the whole field watches to see if someone else will be the
first to buy it, evaluate it, and report how good it is. One
thing the NFB Technology Center could do is evaluate a new
product and pass the word quickly. After a long time in
development, there's a need for someone to speed up and get sales
going.
     In terms of interchangeability, Braille embossers are an
exception to the general rule. You can pull one out and put
another in without much difficulty. 
     Vendors should recognize the curve of user purchasing. The
first wave of buyers are the technically advanced; the next wave
have medium abilities; and finally comes the wave of raw
beginners. Every time a new product comes out, no matter what
manuals or tutorials the producer has prepared for it, six months
to one year later the vendor must be ready for the next wave. It
is a constant struggle to produce a continuing stream of
additional and supplemental items to get ready for the next wave
of purchasers with less and less technical skill.

     Dr. Jernigan: Your point is well taken. Everybody waits
months for someone else to do the evaluation. If it would be
helpful, we and the Foundation could do something along the lines
of publishing evaluations no more than two months after the
product had been placed in the Braille and Technology Center. 

     A discussion on when an evaluation should be made widely
publicized followed.
     Susan Melrose (Chairman of Division 5 of the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired)
said that there is a way to work with vendors rather than acting
as an evaluator to attack them. That is, the first evaluation
ought to go to the vendor and not to a publication. If
improvements are not made, then the evaluation can go out to
consumers.
     Mr. Andrews (Director, National Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind) and Mr. Edwards (First Vice President, ACB)
argued that once the producer has put a product on the market,
negative publicity is fair if the product deserves it. The
consumer has a right to know before wasting his money.

     Dr. Jernigan: We would propose to behave somewhat like the
Underwriters Laboratory. The purpose of this National Technology
Center for the Blind is honestly to evaluate as objectively as we
can the technology that comes. I had a discussion with Mr.
Andrews, which he can confirm, concerning a piece of technology,
and I said, "It doesn't matter what we think about the
individual. It doesn't matter what we think about anybody's
attitude or anything else. If this thing is good, we ought to say
it's good; if it is bad, we ought to say it's bad."
     One more thing: if we're going to give a good evaluation, I
suppose the vendor doesn't care whether he gets early notice; but
it would make sense to say to the vendor: here is what we're
going to say; do you want to make a response to this? But I would
not be willing to pull punches.

     Dr. Cranmer spoke in support of the NFB's making early
evaluations. He suggested that the NFB should also routinely make
space available in the Braille Monitor for announcements of new
technology without evaluation. 
     Dr. Kurzweil stated that as a vendor he finds it perfectly
appropriate for a consumer group to publicize their evaluations
once a product is offered for sale. He suggested that the NFB
offer vendors a chance to bring it prototypes for evaluation on a
confidential basis to help the vendor perfect an item before it
is offered for sale. 
     Dr. Cranmer invited the vendors to take advantage of the
input of the NFB's Research and Development Committee on a
confidential basis, using non-disclosure agreements, to protect
their proprietary interests--but only if the machine is a
prototype in the development stage.
     Mr. Blazie replied to a question by Mr. Cylke about the
technology for a full-page Braille display by saying that at the
NFB's convention last summer, Blazie Engineering showed a twenty-
cell prototype of a display that worked on pneumatics (air
pressure) to push pins up and down. If this works, it could make
a very, very low cost Braille display. He explained that his
small company would need a lot of additional money to finish this
research project. Dr. Jernigan suggested that financing could be
found if there were a real prospect of a full-page Braille
display.
     Based on his experience in Canada, Graham Stoodley (Chairman
of the  Technology Subcommittee of the  National Client Service
Committee of the CNIB) spoke in favor of early evaluations. He
asked if consumers were involved in the beta testing, whether
they could be as objective in the final evaluation.
     Messrs. Chong and Halliday explained that alpha testing is
that done inside the laboratory, and beta testing is that done by
a select group of end users. Mr. Chong called beta testing very
important to consumers because it eliminates the most obvious
bugs. 
     Dr. Jernigan commented that he knew more about the Greek
alphabet than he did about computers, and with that comment the
group paused for a coffee break.


            TECHNOLOGY PRODUCERS PRESENT THEIR VIEWS:
                        THE SECOND PANEL

     After a mid-morning coffee break, conferees reassembled to
hear presentations by the second panel of vendors. Dr. Jernigan
introduced Frank DiPalermo, Product Planner for IBM Special Needs
Systems, from Boca Raton, Florida. 

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Frank DiPalermo.]

     Mr. DiPalermo: When Dr. Jernigan called, he asked me to
cover two topics: what is IBM doing in technology development for
people with disabilities (past, present, and future), and what
can consumer groups and service providers do to aid in the
development of technology?
     I am currently responsible for what we do in product
development in the area of blindness and vision impairments.
Other people there are working on other disability groups. Rather
than reading a litany of IBM-produced products, I'd like to share
with you the philosophy that we have started to accumulate over
the past five years or so in the area of accessibility. It's
really very simple. A good access product should be smart enough
to understand how the computer program works and provide the user
with the same output as sighted co-workers see on their screens,
and this accommodation should happen automatically. Everyone may
not agree with this concept, but I think that to be competitive,
a user really has to sit in the same environment as co-workers,
doing approximately the same things with the same efficiency. Our
current access program, IBM Screen Reader, attempts to deal with
the material on the screen automatically and as rapidly as
possible. 
     Our next challenge, of course, is the graphical user
interface (GUI). Complicated technical problems face developers,
but our task is to do the complicated things for the user so he
or she is doing the same things as sighted co-workers. In this
new environment it isn't necessary to remember commands; help is
easily available; and all programs are running at the same time
on the same screen. But in the process the text mode has been
replaced by pictures. The character recognition system that the
screen review programs have used may eventually prove to be the
right way to approach decoding these pictures, but for the moment
fast access to these graphics is simply not available. Five or
six years from now we may decide that another method holds more
promise. 
     We're involved right now in beta testing. We have about
forty people out there whose jobs were in jeopardy. I had been
keeping a list. Some six months ago, when we felt our prototype
was ready, we contacted them to ask if they wanted to be on the
bleeding edge, so to speak. We now have thirty-eight people
around the world using our prototype in everyday jobs.
     I think we're lucky in this field because people who are
blind are generally vocal. So we're really getting our GUI screen
review program to the point where it's completely usable.
     I'd like to finish with a statement made by Jay McCarthy,
who works for J.C. Penney in Dallas. He called the other day to
say that after four months of this testing he's finally reached a
point where he feels he's more efficient than in the days when he
used only DOS.
     I don't consider ours a field that has dog-eat-dog
competition. I know IBM is very careful not to talk to DEC or to
Lotus in normal dealings because they're competitors. However, in
our case I have no problem in spending time with anyone. In the
past year I've visited many vendors, and recently we asked
vendors who provide refreshable Braille products if there's some
way to provide that output as soon as possible with our graphical
user interface. We'll try to use the prototype we've built and
see if with some additional activity on both sides we can provide
the graphical user interface with both speech and Braille output.
     Now for part two: There are a couple of things I would like
to ask consumer groups and service agencies to do, and I hope I
don't offend anyone. First, get familiar with the technology.
It's very important that those who recommend purchases know as
much as possible about what's available. I challenge vendors to
make that information available through seminars, conferences,
and other means. I've been to perhaps 100 conferences in the last
couple of years. I've seen other vendors there, so the
information is available. Go and learn. People's jobs are on the
line, and they deserve accurate advice about the equipment and
software they need. 
     Second, get involved in what we call the requirements
process--knowing what's needed. It's the basis of product
development. At IBM we've been very open. Our prototype is shown
everywhere; I brought one with me today. I would be happy to
demonstrate it in the Technology Center later. We try very hard
to do the proper homework up front so that, when we do present
the product, it's not a disaster. I would challenge you to get
involved in that process. Contact the producers--make sure you
know what's going on. And I'll start you off with my name as the
right person to talk to at IBM.
     Understand the tradeoffs. Research is very costly, 
especially new hardware. Features may be missing, not because we
don't understand that they are important, but because they are
too costly to develop. 
     Concerning a full-page Braille display, remember with new
computers you may have six windows on the screen, each having
twenty-five lines and eighty characters. One of the things that
comes with graphics is the ability to size the fonts. Obviously
people using our prototype make their fonts as small as possible.
They could care less; they're not going to look at them anyway,
and the screen reader doesn't care how big the font is.
Therefore, the more information they can stuff on the screen at
one time, the more efficient they are. So I'm not sure that the
full-page Braille display is going to be the way to go. If we are
to have a tactile display, we need to step back and consider what
form that should take. We should forget the limitations of
today's technology, dream up whatever we need, and let the
developers try to produce it. 

     Dr. Jernigan: I think we're talking about two different
kinds of Braille display: one to show what's on the computer
screen and one to display the text of a document. I don't know
which one Deane Blazie was talking about.

     Mr. Blazie: A display of a Braille page in a typical press
Braille book--forty characters by twenty-five lines.

     Dr. Jernigan then introduced the next presenter, James
Halliday, President of Humanware, Inc. of Loomis, California. 

     Mr. Halliday: I have copies of my speech in large print and
in Braille. [The text of Mr. Halliday's prepared remarks appears
elsewhere in this issue.] I've come to love this industry. It's
really exciting to be in a room with all the fathers of the
various aspects of the industry. Peter Merrill looked around the
room last night and said to me, "Where are the kids?" Some people
think of us as the old men!        
     Dr. Jernigan asked me to talk about the future of
technology. How can I do that without going back to the past, the
foundation that we have built on? Jim Bliss had the guts to go
out there twenty years ago at the birth of this industry and
start a company just to build products for those who are blind.
All those other companies developed then in the '70s. It was
helpful to have clearly delineated which company did what. If
someone wanted speech, we'd refer them to MCS; if they wanted a
portable reading device or a portable Braille device, we sent
them to TSI; if they wanted a Braille embosser, we'd refer them
to Triformation; if they wanted a reading machine, we'd refer
them to Kurzweil. There were wonderful options.
     Then when the '80s hit, three major things happened, and
they were pretty devastating to the stability that had been
established in the industry. 
     1) The federal government cut funds for social services.
Suddenly there was less funding for vocational rehabilitation 
and education. To reduce the price of the product, we made
reductions in training and support services and tutorial manuals.
We started to lose some of the support necessary to the industry.
     2) We all began fighting for the same dollars, so
competition became fierce, sometimes even cutthroat. That meant
that people began cutting prices, and one of the most obvious
ways to do that is to cut costs, which means eliminating
training, support, support materials, and tutorial manuals.
Everybody began selling everybody else's products.
     3) IBM introduced its personal computer, which brought about
a revolutionary change in the consumer market. Our central goal
became accessing the PC; the word "access" became the main thing.
This opened up tremendous opportunities. Products that were
designed for blind people only were called ghetto products, and
they became less fashionable. The industry and consumers wanted
access products, so ironically a gap developed. Just at the time
that services were dropping out, our users were facing the need
to learn, not only the access product, but also MS DOS and
visually-oriented application programs. This required more
training than ever before, and training was gone.
     In this country and Canada in the '80s, speech became the
access method of choice. Synthesizers became available at a low
price. But in Europe, with its many languages, speech
synthesizers were obviously not the solution. The Europeans
developed ergonomically more usable Braille displays that became
their preferred medium. 
     At the same time there were a few people who realized that
the so-called ghetto product is absolutely vital, the talking
notetaker, for example. I think the NFB gets a lot of credit for
that, and so does Deane Blazie for turning the concept into the
Braille 'n Speak. Training is not quite so essential because the
user is not dealing with the visual dimensions as well as the
software. 
     But it's important for this group to realize what's been
lost in the last few years. Technology itself isn't the answer;
learning to use the technology successfully and productively is.
That means training, and tutorials or something that gets the
technology effectively into the hands of the people who need it.
     When Deane laid out the pricing, he was not really talking
about training costs or post-sales service. Some products require
a tremendous amount of service, and it's a nightmare to provide
the support. As soon as you have an access product that supports
a hundred different kinds of software, nobody can know all of
those programs. All this is happening when federal and state
money is being reduced. Somewhere we have to find funding to
subsidize training or increase prices to include it.
     In the '80s agencies focused on the lowest cost bidder. As a
result, the user who is left with a piece of hardware or software
that is a nightmare to master has been the one to suffer. There's
never been an opportunity like this for the group in this room to
lobby in Washington against cutting these kinds of services. It
may mean pooling our resources to find lobbyists who will work to
make money available for the training and support needed. Or
consumers and providers may have to insist that developers
provide the necessary training, but you must understand that this
will mean higher prices. 
     This industry is great. It is wonderful that the vendors are
willing to get together where they can and cooperate. But all of
us will have to see that funding is available to insure success
for users and not just hardware. 

     Dr. Jernigan next introduced Mr. Mohymen Saddeek, President
of Technology for Independence, Inc. 

[PHOTO: Mohymen Saddeek speaks into a microphone. CAPTION:
Mohymen Saddeek.]

     Mr. Saddeek: Technology for Independence is a new company
that is developing and distributing products for the blind. I'm
not at liberty to discuss several new things that are being
developed in conjunction with MIT and Harvard University. Let's
wait until they're on the market, and then we can make noise
about them. 
     This is a very important conference. Of course there's space
for improvement. Better cooperation could be very, very useful.
In such a small market, volume is very important. It makes
companies such as ours avoid modification. Service also is very
important, but the buyers sometimes overlook that and consider
price only. For example, I was the president of Boston
Information Technology Corp., which was liquidated after a
struggle over a project to develop a talking wallet. That was
costly and lengthy. About 150 talking wallets were produced and
out on the market working, but the cooperation started to fall
apart. The whole experience is something I can call a lesson.
     But to get back to my main point, we also made the Talkman,
a small four-track recorder. (One even had an AM and FM radio,
too.)  This product started in 1983; it was very popular. Blind
consumers need advice over the phone. They are pretty vulnerable
when a necessary device becomes available. So if someone bought a
Talkman in '83 and used it until it was completely worn out, we
said, allright, if you want to buy another one, we'll give you
$60 credit. That is not just to make money. It goes along with a
positive spirit, the belief in the goal of a company that is
trying to sell in this market. You won't find a company in this
market that will succeed if it's only looking for money. There's
nothing wrong with making money; it just can't be the only thing.
It becomes much easier for everyone if there are cooperation and
appreciation for good service and good products. I haven't said a
tenth of what I wanted to, but I will close by saying that I'll
cooperate with anybody to serve blind consumers better and
develop better products at lower cost.

     Dr. Jernigan then introduced the final member of the panel,
Dr. Lawrence H. Boyd, Principal and Director of Research for
Berkeley Systems, Inc. 

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Lawrence Boyd.]

     Dr. Boyd: I'm outranked by my son, who is the president of
the company and my partner. In many respects we are the new kids
on the block. My comments reflect on something relevant to all of
us, attitudes. My son and I jumped into this field without the
kind of experience that I see around the table here. Our company 
literally came out of Trotsky's "advantages of backwardness." All
of a sudden, there was a Macintosh computer with a graphical user
interface (GUI) as the operating system; and, rather than seeing
it as a disaster, we just assumed that this was a great
opportunity.
     We started a small company in 1985 with a simple idea: that
we could provide a magnifier that would enlarge everything on the
computer screen. Our product is called enLARGE.
     Then, in cooperation with Jim Bliss and TSI, we provided
access through the Optacon II to the Macintosh. Then we got into
speech access through the product OutSPOKEN.
     In brief, the three problems of the GUI are that:
1) It is based on a different operating system that renders the
screen in pixels rather than characters.
2) It has a different navigating system which uses a mouse as its
pointing system.
3) It uses icons or visual metaphors for representing
information. The product OutSPOKEN solved these three problems,
but it left some which still remain as gaps in the coverage of
applications and in identifying icons.
     In collaboration with the Trace Center in Wisconsin and with
TeleSensory and Jim Bliss, Berkeley Systems, Inc., is working on
a higher level of access through a cursor tablet, a virtual
tablet, a tactile mouse, and several other things. We think an
important decision is our idea to develop OutSPOKEN as a tool kit
for third-party developers.
     Our research starts with the assumption that the GUI is not
a flat, two-dimensional display, but a spatial organization of
information. The sighted person can't see around things, but you
can hear around corners, or behind you. The question facing us is
whether we can demonstrate that a blind person using the GUI is
getting, not just the same level of access as before, but
increased power and benefit, as does the sighted user of the GUI.
     A few years ago Microsoft commissioned a study which proved
the GUI is more efficient, provides more data, and is a system
sighted people find faster to learn. We wish to conduct a study
comparing the use of the GUI by sighted and blind people. We are
soliciting questions to go into this survey.
     About finances, Berkeley Systems is one of Deane Blazie's
examples of a negative income. We developed enLARGE and then spun
it off for mass market sales outside the blindness field. This
was a  product called SteppingOut, which was very well received
and helped pay the rent. And we produce a mainstream product
called AfterDark, which is essentially computer art.
     We depend a great deal on SBIR grants, the National Eye
Institute, etc. Getting the funding for that kind of research
continues to be a problem.

     Dr. Jernigan: the National Braille and Technology Center for
the Blind probably has more accumulated comparative technology
for demonstration than can be found anywhere else in the world
and is getting more. We intend to have at least one of every kind
of speech technology being made anywhere, and we already have
almost every kind of Braille embosser. When we get that done, we
intend to consider acquiring large-print technology as well.
     If we find there's enough interest in doing so, we intend in
the next year or year and a half to call another conference like
this one. The National Center for the Blind would seem to be the
sensible place to hold it because we plan to stay current with
the technology. We have already put more than a half million
dollars into our technology center, not counting the remodeling
of the plant.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Five gentlemen stand and have a discussion in the
conference room. CAPTION: During coffee breaks at the U.S./Canada
Conference on Technology for the Blind engrossing small-group
discussions like the one pictured here took place wherever
conferees met.]
     
     When the floor was opened for comments and discussion, Mr.
Blazie suggested that perhaps fewer rather than more technology
conferences would be a good idea. Attending them and showing
equipment costs vendors money, which results in higher prices to
the consumer. But producers are afraid not to show up when the
competition may be present. Mr. Blazie also spoke of the need for
vendors to establish a code covering vendor arrangements at
consumer conventions with the object of reducing their expenses.
Being housed in separate buildings minimizes the usefulness of
displays, and staying for an entire week rather than two or three
days increases costs. 
     Dr. Wiener commented that the new IBM product, which he
presumed was Presentation Manager, would not work in conjunction
with Microsoft's Windows, a popular GUI program. He suggested
that this group might band together to ask developers of software
to keep the access problems of blind computer users in mind while
they are writing programs so that such problems do not need to be
solved at the end of the process when they are expensive and
difficult to resolve.
     Mr. DiPalermo said that he currently sees four major
platforms that use the GUI: IBM's OS/2, the UNIX platform with X-
Windows, the Macintosh, and Microsoft Windows. IBM originally
intended to make all of these, except Macintosh, accessible. But
although IBM approached Microsoft asking them to share
information about how Windows works in order to make it available
for blind end users, no cooperation developed. Dr. Boyd said that
Berkeley Systems has worked with Microsoft, and he is hopeful
that the BSI screen review program will make Windows accessible.
Mr. DiPalermo reported that the OS/2 platform is now beginning to
be accessible through the new IBM program; the Unix platform is
taking a little longer, but in six to eight months IBM should be
doing some beta testing on that application as well. In closing
Mr. DiPalermo stressed that each one of the platforms needs to
have some standard things put into it so that various access
programs can be used with them as they are with DOS. He urged Dr.
Boyd to encourage Microsoft to do that as he intends to do with
IBM. 
     Concerning the problem that people don't know what's
available, Mr. Holladay suggested that one solution would be to
have a good international on-line database listing all the
manufacturers and products, with access by modem and CD-ROM. He
said that the same kind of network for ideas about what people
need would also be useful. He spoke of a white paper developed by
the Trace Center of Wisconsin which has guidelines for
manufacturers setting out what is needed from designers and
product planners for accessibility: what kinds of things could
they put up front in the design process at a point when the cost
is relatively low? He said often such revised designs increase
the ergonomics for able-bodied users as well. Finally he
complained that local technical centers are often ill-equipped to
give consumers the best advice because they are familiar with the
products of only one large provider. He would like to see
improvement in the quality of advice that these centers offer. 
     Mr. Edwards said he thought training of blind technology
consumers is critical. Blind users must know enough to make
adjustments in their programs when they run into problems or need
to access different kinds of material. There is much variety in
the quality of training currently being provided to new computer
users. He suggested that the field establish minimum competency
standards for technology instructors in training centers.
Otherwise he thought that we would soon face the same problem we
have with Braille instruction; both are being taught by people
who aren't qualified. As a result we will continue to produce
technologically inept as well as Braille-illiterate blind people.
     Ms. Melrose of AER warned that Division 5 has been
struggling with certification for technologists for three years.
She said that the huge variety of access equipment and programs
makes it nearly impossible to decide on appropriate minimum
competencies.
     Dr. Dixon suggested that amid all the talk about
establishing standards for evaluating instruction and technology
there be some consideration of formulating standards for
evaluation itself so that the same things (Does it have a manual?
Is its format accessible?) are being assessed from product to
product. Such information should be widely disseminated. 
     Dr. Spungin reinforced the importance of Dr. Dixon's remarks
by pointing out that when the AFB was compiling a directory of
training centers, they discovered early that there are lots of
very small, disorganized, inadequate programs advertising
themselves as training centers. Some effort should be made to
standardize the breadth, quality, and thoroughness of training
programs for blind technology users. 
     Mr. Holladay of Raised Dot Computing urged vendors to work
very hard to insure that new purchasers learn to use their
products effectively. He believes strongly that for every buyer
who is happy with a purchase there are two who don't know what
they are doing at all and three more who are barely getting by.
Several potential users are watching each of these people and
determining whether or not to jump into the computer revolution
based on what they see. Most of the would-be market is being lost
because of unfortunate experiences with equipment and software. 
     Jim Fruchterman, President of Arkenstone, Inc., said it was
possible to use the commercial PC market as a model. Part of the
reason much of the technology for the blind has been successful
has been that versions of it have been used broadly in the wider
computer market. The reason that the price of PC-based reading
systems is dropping and will be $2,000 within two years is that
scanners, PCs, and optical character recognition systems are in
demand beyond the blindness market. The larger field has met and
solved problems like training and standard-setting, and these
solutions may help us. The commercial market is extremely price-
driven, and when ordinary users don't pay for training and
support, they don't get them. How do vendors tackle this issue?
They keep the product simple. They write better manuals and use
low-cost service such as 800 number support and third party
training suppliers who sell the services. State rehabilitation
agencies combine service and support with the other services they
provide their clients. Part of the answer may be to offer
extended (two- to-three-year) warranties.
     With respect to the question of establishing standards, he
said that there are many parallels between the general technology
field and that of adaptive technology. Printers and scanners are
a good example. Many applications require these pieces of
equipment, and the way software purchasers have been able to use
any of hundreds of printers and dozens of scanners is to employ
either a printer driver or a scanner driver. Today a blind person
can buy a reading machine that uses any one of fifteen scanners
because a driver is available for each one. There is a real need
for technology producers to develop universally useable drivers
for synthesizers, Braille displays, and Braille printers. A lot
of vendors are independently creating the same or similar
solutions over and over again. Arkenstone has been developing
generalized speech synthesizer drivers, and the company may make
those available for what might be a nominal fee. Once Arkenstone
has built it, other applications can use it, and users will be
able to have programs that support any of a number of speech
synthesizers. This is a major opportunity for standardization.
It's practical, and everyone benefits. The loss of competition is
less important than the possibility of larger markets. 
     The general discussion resumed after lunch. Dr. Herie
congratulated Marc Maurer for having his 1991 NFB Annual Banquet
speech, "Reflecting the Flame," published in Vital Speeches of
the Day, a national magazine. 
     Dr. Jernigan informed the group about an upcoming television
program, "Good and Evil," which he called "the worst TV portrayal
of a blind person that I have ever in my entire life seen." After
periodic discussion during the afternoon, members of the group
sent a strongly worded telegram to ABC Television. (See the
December, 1991, issue of the Braille Monitor for the text.)
     Peter Merrill, President of the BETACOM Group, asked what
directives the group was going to develop.
     Dr. Jernigan reminded everyone that they were all leaders
and that the group had the authority to do anything it had the
good sense to decide upon. 
     Dr. Cranmer spoke about Design for Everyone, a conference
planned by the Electronic Industries Foundation which didn't
occur because they had too few registered participants. Although
the NFB's Research and Development Committee has been working
with Lloyd Rasmussen (a blind engineer) and Curtis Chong to set
standards for products in the design and prototype stage, Dr.
Cranmer believes that things are still too fluid in the field of
technology for the blind and fears that setting up standards too
soon would be likely to standardize bad practices along with good
ones. He suggested waiting and caution.
     Dr. Jernigan recommended that the group remember that the
average blind person wants and needs low-tech items. A discussion
followed about the proper allocation of provider funds for
product development. When money is spent for one thing, it is
necessarily no longer available for purchase of other goods or
services. Would an attractive combination chess and checker board
and pieces sell widely at fifteen or twenty dollars a set? Should
the NFB spend the money to produce one? Dr. Jernigan reminded the
group that blind people can make use of generally available low-
tech items with great success. He spoke of a commercially sold
Christmas teacup that plays "Jingle Bells" if the base receives
any light. He finds this is a useful, inexpensive probe whenever
he wishes to know whether the light is on in a room. 
     Chris Lowrie, a consumer from Canada, said she was glad that
low-tech items had been mentioned. Most people who are legally
blind are elderly and, except through word of mouth, don't know
what's available--canes, magnifiers, self-threading needles. How
do we solve that problem?
     Noel Runyan, President of Personal Data Systems, said that
we need either a high-profile contact point with national
advertising, such as Dr. Jernigan's ads, to educate the public
about what is available to people who are losing their sight, or
we must have distribution centers around the country in which
people can learn about equipment and from which they can borrow
or purchase it.
     After hearing a summary by Dr. Spungin of the ideas
generated in and discussed during the conference, Dr. Jernigan
asked people to suppose that the NFB were prepared to put fifty
to  a hundred thousand dollars into one project that came out of
this conference. The question is, what should it be? The NFB
technology loan fund? Some pooled project agreed upon by several
members of the group? Buying  items in quantity for resale?
Starting a p.r. campaign to find people who need items that are
already available? Hiring someone to get corporate or government
grants to fund projects the group agreed on? Or creating a fund
for lobbying Congress to get more funds? Conference participants
must come to agreement about what most needs to be done so that
individual organizations will know how to proceed. 
     After a discussion on the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the likelihood that it will require the increased use
of Braille and audio materials, Graham Stoodley suggested that
the group was trying to deal with too many issues simultaneously.
It should settle on one high-priority effort with which to begin
cooperation. He proposed that such a project might be persuading
commercial producers of all kinds of high- and low-tech equipment
to take the visually impaired portion of the market into account
when designing and manufacturing their products. Producers must
be able reliably to learn from some source  what modifications
are necessary. 
     Dr. Jernigan asked what mechanism would effectively convey
the wishes of the group to manufacturers. Dr. Cranmer said that
the NFB's R and D committee has been working on guidelines for
the electronics industry, but it has nothing to do with the
educational aspects of this communication problem. Perhaps there
should be a new joint committee arising from this conference that
would be specifically responsible for establishing contacts with
manufacturers. Dr. Jernigan asked Dr. Cranmer to complete work on
a draft of basic technical guidelines which might be amended and
adopted by other agencies and groups. Then the field would be
united and better equipped to tackle big industry with specific
requests. An unidentified speaker urged that an effort be made to
reach the university community so that those who will make
decisions for big business in the future can be taught now to
remember the requirements of the disability community at the
design stage of projects. An attempt should also be made to
combine in one document descriptions of all the high- and low-
tech equipment that is available. It could be widely circulated
to those who work with the general public and know nothing about
blindness so that, as people lose vision, they can learn what is
already available somewhere. They will then know how to begin
looking. 
     Dr. Wiener suggested that a committee be formed from this
group to study the proceedings of this conference and pull out
the ideas and suggestions that emerged. Important initiatives and
suggestions have been made, and these should not be lost. 
     Dr. Jernigan reminded people that all manufacturers are in
business to make money. If this group wants to persuade them to
make design modifications to assist blind people, it will have to
present arguments showing why it is in their interest to do so:
profit, law, public opinion, personal gratification, etc. There
was some debate about whether a new committee should be appointed
to deal with computer hardware and software or only other
manufactured items. Both efforts are necessary, but Dr. Cranmer
maintained that high-tech guidelines are already being worked on
and that, therefore, a new committee should concentrate on other
issues. Several people agreed that the graphical user interface
is so important today that solving the problem of blind people's
access to it should be at the top of the list of priorities. Mr.
Schreier said that the GUI becomes even more important when one
considers the trend toward graphic representation in every part
of modern life. If we don't find a way to keep blind people in
touch with the increasing number of graphic displays, all blind
people, whether they ever heard of the GUI or not, will lose out.
     Dr. Dixon reminded  the group that the majority of persons
who are legally blind do not need or desire access to computers
with the GUI but to common manufacturers' products and low-tech
items. Dr. Jernigan and Dr. Dixon wondered whether a new
committee needs to be concerned with access to the GUI since
three of the largest computer companies are already working on
it. 
     John Nelson mentioned that the state of Maine has
established a revolving fund for technology purchase. Florida and
Texas designate a portion of their revenue from traffic tickets
for assistive technology for disabled people. 
     Dr. Kurzweil said that the run-of-the-mill blind computer
user does not yet feel the impact of the GUI because there are
still character-based software packages available, but three
years from now there will be almost none on the market. Then this
will become  a crisis large enough to justify attention now in
both the public and private sectors. 
     Mr. Edwards pointed out that at one time producers of
commercially available appliances made arrangements to have their
equipment modified for blind purchasers. But the internal
communication about these  programs was so poor within the
companies that many blind customers never took advantage of the
service. Manufacturers then concluded that there was no market
for the modifications. Dr. Cranmer said that the object should be
to encourage manufacturers to produce equipment that is usable by
blind people without modification rather than asking them to sell
modification kits or services. Mr. Schreier added that the same
point could be made with equal force about the GUI and its
developers. 
     At the close of the day's session, Dr. Jernigan remarked
that, rather than running out of steam, the group had begun to
build up momentum.
     First through the North America/Caribbean Region of the
World Blind Union, then through the Committee on Joint
Organizational Effort, and now through this conference, this
field has now established a vehicle for working together. Today
there is an expanded group of leaders in the blindness field able
to talk and work together to solve common problems.
     

                   DECISIONS AND FUTURE PLANS:
                 THE SATURDAY MORNING DISCUSSION

     On Saturday morning, September 21, 1991, the provider and
consumer representatives to the U.S./Canada Conference on
Technology for the Blind met for final discussions. The comments
were wide-ranging but centered on the proposals made by the
Conference Planning Committee. Here is a summary of conference
decisions: 
     Dr. Jernigan began by explaining that the planning committee
had met the evening before to discuss present goals and future
plans. The members agreed that there should be a second United
States/Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind, with
selected invitees from overseas to the conference, to be held
sometime in 1993, to occur at the National Center for the Blind,
and to be hosted and sponsored by the National Federation of the
Blind. 
     The Planning Committee also agreed to recommend that certain
ongoing committees be appointed. They are:
     1) A Committee on Information and Dissemination. This
committee will compile a database on technology, and the American
Foundation for the Blind will chair it. It will include Canadian
National Institute for the Blind and National Federation of the
Blind representatives, and others who want to serve will be
welcome and should contact Dr. Spungin to express their interest.
     Dr. Spungin proposed that this committee build on the
information database on technology which Elliot Schreier directs.
It currently lists vendors, products, evaluations, training
programs, and the like. The group will work to develop methods by
which the American Foundation for the Blind can acquire and
disseminate the data and by which end users can receive the data
easily. They will consider low-tech methods in addition to
downloading by modem. Information is to be collected on all kinds
of low- and high-tech equipment and software. 
     Mr. Edwards mentioned that AbleData and the Trace Center
already have such a data base. He encouraged the committee to add
these data to the AFB compilation.
     Dr. Jernigan proposed that the word "data base" not be used
in the title because this library should not be limited to
information on high-tech computer products, and nothing in its
title should imply that access to the information is by computer
only. He suggested that the body be called the Committee on
Collection and Dissemination of Information on Technology.  
     2) Creation of the International Resource Center on
Technology. The NFB will chair this effort, and it will be based
at the National Center for the Blind. Its Advisory Committee, to 
which conference participants can name representatives,  will set
policies on what this Center does. The CNIB has already agreed to
take part in this program, and during the discussion William
McLaughlin (Deputy Director of the National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research) and Louis Tutt (Vice
President of the Council of Executives of American Residential
Schools for the Visually Handicapped) expressed interest in
having the NIDRR and the CEARSVH, respectively, take part in the
deliberations of the committee. 
     Dr. Jernigan explained that the National Braille and 
Technology Center for the Blind will continue to expand. People
will be invited to come for training in the use of some or all of
the equipment displayed there. The challenge will be to find a
way to make this resource accessible and affordable to the people
who want to take advantage of it.
     Dr. Herie said that the National Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind is a unique resource, which we are 
fortunate to have in North America. All of us will have to work
on a funding mechanism for the International Resource Center,
which will be taking advantage of the facilities at the Braille
and Technology Center for the Blind. Canada would like to send
end users, itinerant teachers, students, and personnel from CNIB
technology centers to the Center to learn.
     Dr. Jernigan explained that in addition to the physical
plant the NFB has already committed a half million dollars to
purchasing equipment. Some has been donated, and the organization
is prepared to allocate another half million or more to the
project. If the current space proves insufficient, the Federation
has another 20,000 feet of space that can be committed. Given the
magnitude of the NFB's outlay, he thought it was reasonable to
charge some tuition for individuals or groups seeking training at
the Resource Center. He added that the NFB would appreciate
referrals and suggestions about how conferees would like to see
the Center used.
     Expressing concern about the need for certification of
instructors in other centers, Rachel Rosenbaum (Vice President of
the National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind) reminded
the group that some of the existing training programs are not
constructive, and some kind of certification is necessary. She
suggested that this issue be addressed by the Resource Center
Advisory Committee. 
     Dr. Jernigan responded that what the NFB intends to do is
not exclusionary. People who come to the Center will be trained
in the use of the technology available, specifically in Braille
embossing devices, speech technology, and certain other related
items. The Federation would not intend to prevent any other
organization from doing training. Preliminary plans for the
Center include hiring an expert who would become even more
knowledgeable in the course of his or her work. 
     Dr. Wiener explained to Ms. Rosenbaum that the Planning
Committee has proposed a third committee that would be
established to look into the question of standards and
certification. 
     Dr. Herie warned against the traditional model of
university-type courses and degrees. Dr. Jernigan agreed. The
Center  will be a resource offering demonstrations, tours, and
teaching for varied lengths of time. A second staff person will
probably be hired to assist people in learning what they want to
know.  There will be a reference and referral service by phone,
computer, and perhaps letter.
     3) The Committee on Guidelines and Standards. The AER will
chair this group. Dr. Wiener explained that AER has been involved
through its Division 5 in considering technology standards in
this field. He agreed with Dr. Cranmer that, if standards are put
in stone too quickly, they can choke the growth of a field;
however, as the field is evolving, it is useful to have best
practice clearly stated.  He said that preliminary notions are
that the standards should be broad philosophical statements.
     Dr. Jernigan asked if AER was specifically thinking of
setting standards for teachers of technology. If so, what does
that really mean? 
     Ms. Melrose, who Dr. Wiener said was likely to chair this
committee because she has been active with the AER committee
struggling with standards for the past three years,  admitted
that most technology instructors are self-taught or the product
of formal programs and mentoring in combination. 
     Dr. Jernigan pointed out that, if one considers the
equipment present in the National Braille and Technology Center
for the Blind at the National Center, the most competent
technology expert in the country would probably be David Andrews.
If he wanted to be certified, who would be presumptuous enough to
try to do it?  On the other hand, the NFB certainly does not want
to get into the business of having him certify other people. 
     Several people cited the dilemma posed by someone who is
competently teaching the use of a single piece of equipment like
a Braille embosser. Agreement was eventually reached that any
standards developed should not exclude such a teacher.
     Dr. Wiener said that the points made during the discussion
had been well taken and that it might be wise for the proposed
committee to avoid the questions of  certification and
accreditation. He suggested that it concentrate on developing
general standards reflecting accessibility and focused on
manufacturers and the market place. 
     Mr. Edwards argued for charging the committee with
developing certification standards for assessing the competence
of instructors in the use of the equipment they are supposed to
have mastered. AER should be left with the problem of deciding
whether or not a particular individual is a good teacher, but it
ought to be possible to determine the technical competence of
instructors. Part of the problem we face today with Braille
instruction is that people who do not know the system are
teaching it. It would be reprehensible to wait until technology
teaching has reached the same dismal state as Braille instruction
has before addressing the problem. 
     Dr. Cranmer commented that on the NFB's R and D Committee
there are eleven members, and they are among the most learned,
scholarly, and competent technocrats in the field of blindness.
He said he couldn't conceive of a set of standards that would
qualify all of them to teach.  Standards broad enough to
encompass all of them would be no standards at all. He proposed
giving this question some time, not abandoning it forever--
fifteen or twenty years would be good enough. Braille has been
around for over a hundred years; the personal computer is less
than fifteen years old. We need time before standards are
imposed. At the close of the discussion, both the NFB and the
NCSAB indicated an interest in being represented on the
committee. 
     Dr. Jernigan reported that the Planning Committee talked
about the NFB's R and D Committee, which already exists. Visiting
participants in its deliberations have included CNIB
representatives and Elliot Schreier from the AFB. He invited
anyone from the groups represented at the conference to attend
meetings of the committee. 
     4) A purchase consortium, chaired by the CNIB. Dr. Herie
outlined his concept of this project. He estimated that the
volume of sales from the CNIB national program is in the
neighborhood of one million dollars.  This does not include all
the purchases made by CNIB local offices, provincial programs, or
the private sector. He said that there had been talk about a
purchase consortium at the first meeting of the JOE Committee,
but the idea hasn't come to fruition until now.
     This consortium is not intended to work against the
interests of the manufacturers--quite to the contrary. Its object
ought to be to put products into the hands of consumers at the
most favorable prices and on a timely basis.  The issues raised
at this meeting (product support, reliability, and quality) will
also be looked at carefully. 
     The consortium will want to attract other major players in
this field and will probably invite three or four other countries
to join; Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have
all expressed interest in this concept. The consortium would then
identify a group of products based on several criteria like
popularity, which translates directly into volume. Of special
interest would be products manufactured by a sole source without
competition and with long waiting periods. Prices might well be
improved by the consortium's activity, and it could  help by
insisting on tighter production schedules. The group could
maintain a watch on attractive products for which manufacturers
need more volume in order to continue production. The
preservation of the Sharp Talking Clock is the best example of
the way a consortium can resolve this kind of availability
problem. 
     Dr. Herie cautioned that this program won't work if the
consortium tries to include fifteen hundred products. It should
begin modestly with three or ten or thirty items that the
committee agrees on. He concluded by saying that such a
consortium is in everyone's best interest. Many blind people want
and need the high- and low-tech equipment that is now available,
but it must be at a price that they can afford. If the consortium
can help to accomplish this, producers, service providers, and
consumers will all benefit. 
     5) A committee on obtaining more funding. Dr. Jernigan
warned that this will be a difficult one to organize. The
committee's task will be to find additional funding for
technology. Venture capital will be hard to attract. But through
grants or lobbying, funds must be found. Someone with business
know-how should chair the committee, and the planning group
hadn't yet come up with the right person, but they would be happy
to entertain recommendations. 
     The thinking about this committee is still nebulous, but the
Planning Committee will try to find a chair and contact conferees
to solicit membership after that. It is clear that additional
technology for the blind must be funded and that there are
sensitive issues of who is going to do what and how things are to
be handled. 
     After thanks by Dr. Spungin to the NFB for hosting the
conference and a statement by Dr. Wiener that more than a start
on resolving technology problems had been accomplished during the
meeting, participants listened to Dr. Jernigan's final remarks.
He reminded the group that all of them were welcome at any time
to use the resources of the newly renamed International Braille
and Technology Center for the Blind. At Dr. Herie's suggestion,
President Maurer and Dr. Jernigan had determined earlier in the
morning to change the title to reflect the growing international
importance of the work of the NFB's technology facility. He also
invited participants to use the other elements of the National
Center for the Blind, and he paid tribute to the work of all
those who made this conference possible, particularly  the
Committee on Joint Organizational Effort and, more specifically,
the other  members of the Planning Committee--Drs. Spungin,
Wiener, and Herie.
     Commissioner Nell Carney concluded the conference by saying:
At the Rehabilitation Services Administration we say that there
are four major areas that are going to have significant impact on
the lives of people with physical and mental disabilities over
the next decade: technology, research, legislation, and service
delivery systems. During my lifetime the blindness field has
always led the way, been the scout, the pioneer showing other
disability groups how to do it. I believe that this conference
has been historic, and I'm very honored to have been here. The
five committees that you want to establish have real and
significant implications.
     With no other business before the group, Dr. Jernigan 
adjourned the conference at 11:45 a.m.


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Jim Halliday.]

                    THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY
                   by Jim Halliday, President
                         HumanWare, Inc.

     When asked to discuss the future of technology, I
immediately found myself looking to the past to determine what
kind of foundation on top of which the future is being built.
We've seen marvelous times and unfortunate times, but our
challenge now is to retain the good and jettison the bad. Let's
look into the past to see where we should be heading. Forgive me
if I leave out any essential history, which I am sure to do
within the time constraints. I'd like to go back twenty years to
a time when technology was nearly nonexistent for people who were
blind. With the exception of the Perkins Brailler, a cassette
recorder, and perhaps the thermoform machine, there was a great
void.

1970s - Filling the Void
A Time for Creation, Innovation, Invention

     In the midst of this great void, John Linvill and Jim Bliss
of Stanford University were working on an optical-to-tactile
converter with the goal of providing people who were blind with
direct access to print. The result was the Optacon, and when no
other company felt that the market potential was large enough or
important enough to manufacture and sell a product designed only
for blind people, Jim had the courage and foresight to start a
company called Telesensory Systems, Inc.--and in so doing,
started a new industry.
     Ironically, the Optacon remains today the only truly
portable way for a blind person to directly access printed
material; and, despite the many other advances which have become
available as this industry has grown, I meet users all the time
who still use their Optacons on a daily basis. Of course, there
are many faster and easier ways to access print on a less
portable basis, but we will talk more about reading machines
later in this presentation.
     One of the things that became obvious shortly after the
Optacon was released was that evaluation and training were
essential if the user were to succeed with the product. This
vitally important point seems to have been forgotten for the
majority of the people buying today's products. Keep in mind that
buyers are not always end users. Today an agency may pay
thousands of dollars for access technology to be used by a blind
person, yet spend nothing on training that person on how to use
the technology successfully. This single issue has been a
monumental problem for the companies that produce access
technology and for the end-users. Training is another key point
to which we will return when discussing future technology.
     Within a few short years there were a number of companies
that gave credibility to this new industry. Each company had its
own niche, and each would refer customers to the other, depending
on the customer's needs. An innovative group of young people, led
by Deane Blazie, started a company called Maryland Computer
Services. They wrote speech algorithms for a Votrax speech chip
and created a terminal called TotalTalk for use with a
Hewlett-Packard computer. (By the way, Deane also understood the
value of training, and this was again an integral part of the
sale of that product.) MCS became the company to which we all
referred people interested in speech.
     Low vision was also a major issue, and television technology
had developed to the point that Sam Genensky developed a closed
circuit television (CCTV) which enlarged print. The idea was
taken by a company called Apollo Laser and more importantly by
Larry Israel, who started a company called Visualtek.
     As the industry began to search for jobs in which blind
people could compete successfully, it became clear that those
jobs that were computer-related were excellent choices. A special
lens was designed for the Optacon to provide direct access to the
screen, but a hard copy in Braille became essential for many of
the high-level computer users. Triformation Systems came up with
the LED 120, which became the industry standard.
     Because of the sheer bulk of Braille and the need for
interactive Braille, a number of companies attempted to create
Braille cells. TSI not only came up with a very high quality
Braille display, using piezoelectric technology, but packaged it
in a portable system called the VersaBraille. I think this
product can be considered the first truly successful laptop
computer, and as a result, blind people had such a device years
before sighted people ever had anything comparable. One of the
key features, which seemed to be more of an afterthought in some
respects, was the fact that the VersaBraille could also function
as a dumb terminal, giving blind people better interactive access
to mainframe computers.
     But at the time most people were not computer users, and
access to the world of print remained inefficient. The idea of
capturing letters optically and converting those letters into
ASCII code became the goal of a man named Ray Kurzweil. He took
this idea of Optical Character Recognition (OCR), combined it
with synthetic speech, and the result was the Kurzweil Reading
Machine.
     So here we are. It's the end of the 1970s. TSI has a
portable reading device, a laptop word processor with a 20
character Braille display, and a talking calculator; MCS is the
talking computer company; Triformation Systems is a hard copy
Braille company; Visualtek is the CCTV company; and Kurzweil
Computer Products has reading machines. Everything is clearly
delineated. There is no longer a void of technology. Users are
being trained and successfully employed. Products are priced so
that companies can properly support their products, fund their
rates of growth, and invest in future developments. All things
considered, it was a very exciting time.

1980s - The Double-Edged Sword
A Time of Competition, Struggle, Restructuring

     Three major things happened in our industry at the beginning
of the 1980s, each of which had devastating effects on the
comfortable balance that seemed to exist at the end of the
seventies.
     1. The new administration in Washington decided that severe
cuts in education and social services were essential. Because up
to 85% of the blindness-related product sales were dependent on
these funds, our industry went into shock.
     2. Survival became the fundamental goal. Competition for the
same dollars was fierce. Pricing became an issue for the first
time, but with the reduced prices came the reduced services.
Severe cutbacks in personnel, support, quality manuals, and
training resulted as cash became tighter and tighter. Companies
started looking at each other's products and were soon fighting
not only for the same dollars, but for the same market niches.
The clearly delineated market segments of the seventies rapidly
became muddied as everyone tried to sell everything.
     3. In the midst of all of this turmoil, a revolution was
taking place in the consumer marketplace. IBM introduced the
Personal Computer. As the world moved toward the PC and the use
of MicroSoft's Disk Operating System with phenomenal rapidity, a
few individuals in the blindness industry began looking at access
to these MS-DOS based computers. "Access" became the magic word,
and products that did not provide "access" to MS-DOS were labeled
as "ghetto" products that could only be used by blind people and
no one else. Functionality and productivity often suffered as
people made the move from a so-called "ghetto" product, which had
been designed specifically for a blind user, to an "access"
product, which enabled blind people to use sighted people's
software.
     The companies that jumped on the bandwagon survived, but in
a very different form than before. Sales structures were changed
from salary to commission, putting the emphasis on selling rather
than consulting and supporting. Distributors became more common
than company representatives, placing a greater wedge between the
end-user and the actual manufacturer. Communication and feedback
began to suffer.
     Inexpensive speech synthesizers were readily available,
enabling individual garage shop operations to develop "access"
software. Those that developed their own synthesizers grew into
major forces, such as Artic Technologies. Others remained one- or
two-person operations. Their minimal overheads and the low prices
made it very difficult for a large company to compete in the
speech business. Nevertheless, TSI extended its drive into
speech, while adding embossers and CCTVs. Visualtek wasn't going
to put up with that, so it changed its name to VTEK and got into
the blindness business. High-end synthesizers were developed,
like the DECtalk at $4,000; and although these options were more
intelligible and natural sounding at normal speeds, they fell
apart at high speeds, and they were not responsive enough for the
needs of most blind computer users.
     Because margins had been slashed so much due to the
competitive nature of the marketplace, all of the traditional
training and support provided by most manufacturers in the
seventies disintegrated in the eighties. The irony here is that
these services were even more important for "access technology"
than for products design from a blindness-oriented logic. Users
were not only forced to learn the access software, but also
MS-DOS and its unintuitive command structure, and finally a
visually oriented applications program. Training was essential,
but manufacturers could not provide it at a reasonable price to
cover their costs; and in most cases rehab would not pay for it,
either due to sheer ignorance or tight budgets. ACCESS was king,
but without training, SUCCESS usually came only after weeks or
even months of agonizing frustration. The concept of on-line,
context-sensitive help, and of tape tutorials, which enabled a
user to be productive in a fraction of the time, were integral
parts of a product called Keynote. This concept was coined in a
word called HumanWare, and a company was started, which now bears
that name. Companies hired applications people to provide
support, but it was never enough--and everyone seemed
dissatisfied. This problem still exists today although it seems
like less of an issue because so many users have struggled
through the learning process.
     There was no longer a technological void in the eighties,
but there was a training and support void because of the lack of
cash on both sides of the sale. Companies that tried to build the
proper support into the price of the product lost every bid
because their prices were too high. The market saved money in one
way, but the user usually paid the price in the end.
     To help fill the gap, private agencies began developing
technical aids centers, used for demonstrations and to provide
training on products. The problem with this is that equipment was
extremely expensive and new models were always appearing.
Competition always had a set of new features that trainers needed
to learn, and between the vast variety of equipment and the new
versions and models it was not humanly possible to master all of
it.
     Luckily, there were people who felt that access to MS-DOS
was not the only kind of product needed in our industry. The
engineering wizards at NFB came up with a design for a
note-taking system which used Braille input and speech output.
Deane Blazie re-emerged, turning NFB's concept into Braille `n
Speak, perhaps the most important contribution to blind people in
the eighties.
     Kurzweil was purchased by Xerox, so a new infusion of
capital enabled them to create a new, lower priced reading
machine.
     With so many different languages in Europe, speech
synthesizers did not have the same impact there. Braille remained
the key medium of "access," and most computer users in Europe
scorned the use of speech. Because people in North America never
had a truly acceptable Braille "access" product for MS-DOS, a
stake was driven into the heart of dynamic braille on this
continent. In Europe, however, Braille technology continued to
develop. A low profile, eight-dot display was produced by F. J.
Tieman that was not only ergonomically superior, but more
serviceable and reliable than other Braille displays. Europe's
concentration on Braille resulted in many advances that were not
available in the U.S. until a fledgling company called HumanWare
introduced them. The eight-dot, low-profile Braille display; 40-
and 80-character Braille lines with additional cells to provide
essential status information; touch-sensitive strips to make
cursor routing accurate and simple; parallel interfaces that save
the serial port, yet increase responsiveness while eliminating
the incessant interrupt problems which cause other systems to
lock up so frequently--these were among the many advances brought
over from Europe.
     So, here we are at the end of the eighties. Speech has
dominated the industry and spawned many small companies. TSI has
added its line of Braille displays to the picture. HumanWare has
introduced the first CCD cameras into CCTVs in the U.S. Blazie
Engineering is about to introduce the first truly low-cost
Braille printer. Enabling Technologies (formerly Triformation
Systems) has gone back to what it does best and is working on the
first (relatively) low cost interpoint Braille printers. And a
little non-profit company called Arkenstone is preparing to
revolutionize the OCR part of the industry.

1990s - A Look to the Future
A Time for Refinement, Consolidation, Teamwork

     The nineties started out with a bang. VTEK became part of
TSI and sent another shock through the market as the giant
Telesensory Corporation (TSC) was born. The new products from
Blazie and Enabling have appeared and have been received with
very positive results. Arkenstone has taken the market by storm
with its concept of using a computer with a screen-reading
program, coupled with its OCR technology to create a reading
machine. And HumanWare has introduced a video-oriented screen
reader, a touch sensitive tablet which corresponds to the
computer monitor, and an extremely responsive speech synthesizer
that is second to none in intelligibility (especially at high
speeds) yet packs the equivalent of an IBM PC's processor, 256K
of memory and a digital speech processor onto a circuit board
only 2 inches by 5 inches.
     The nineties open a whole new set of challenges to our
industry.
     1. Now that we have finally conquered MS-DOS and have
adequate understanding of how to use it successfully, MicroSoft
has introduced Windows. IBM has OS/2 for the moment, but is
joining forces with the minds of Apple, whose Macintosh has
turned computing into a joy instead of a nightmare for sighted
computer novices. Whatever these two companies come up with is
likely to be exciting, but our industry must have access to the
development if we hope to enable blind people to use the new
technology.
     2. "A picture is worth a thousand words." An icon is a
symbol that quickly conveys a message in a fraction of the time
that  it would in words. A graphic is spatial, yet only makes
sense when its parts are simultaneously observed in relation to
each other. Once a symbol is understood, it cannot only convey
instant information but can also invoke instant emotional
reaction, such as a cross or a swastika or a heart. This problem
is not simply solved by saying the word that represents the
symbol, although that could help, but the contextual simultaneity
inherent in a gestalt image must be translated into a
simultaneous presentation of information in some other medium or
media.
     Rather than get too carried away with the idea of imagery, I
think it is important to realize that our use of computers
generally relates to entering and reviewing data or words, not
pictures. We are not trying to become auditory graphic artists.
That's why we have musicians and composers. We are trying to
access graphic characters that look like letters and text or
symbols that have a name. We must insure that producers of
computer programs and operating systems simultaneously present
this graphics information in an accessible and usable form. ASCII
is the current code, which would make this quite simple. But who
is to say there is not a better code the industry should follow
in the future?
     The point here is that deciding on an industry standard and
sharing that information is essential. Competition must cease
when it comes to creating standards. We must all be on the same
team and work together if we don't want this industry to be left
in the eighties while the rest of the world moves ahead.
     3. Whatever technological solutions are found, we must all
recognize that training is likely to be essential to success. If
we are to enable our customers to succeed, funding must be found
to subsidize this training, or prices must be raised. I can't
state this strongly enough. Competitive bidding has destroyed the
infrastructure of our training and support network in this
industry. Purchasing agents are proud of their performance, but
end users inevitably suffer.
     4. Despite the fact that training and sufficient support
have been cut from the price of most products, we still receive
complaints on prices. We must recognize the fact that it costs
just as much to develop a product in our industry as it does in a
normal consumer market. What's different is the return on that
investment. Brainstorming ideas, creating a spec, engineering and
development of hardware and/or software, re-engineering and
redevelopment, documentation for production, development of
service and user manuals, sales literature, educating and
informing the market, etc. are all expenses inherent in any
product development. Additionally, the cost of goods is
dramatically higher for the same product if it sells in low
volumes rather than high. An example in our industry would be the
old Speech + talking calculator. It sold for about $500. When
Sharp introduced its talking calculator at $50, it projected
selling 10,000 units per month. At that rate, they would have
sold more in six weeks than TSI sold in seven years. Who do you
think would have ended up with the most income from those two
products, Sharp or TSI? In actual fact, Sharp's product was
vastly overpriced based on cost of goods, and TSI's was probably
underpriced. Consumers who are blind and administrators of
programs that serve blind people often respond negatively to high
prices, not recognizing the costs. DEC, Xerox, IBM are all
mammoth companies, but the products they have designed for our
industry are generally more expensive than those produced by the
TSIs, HumanWares, Henter-Joyces, etc. I don't know of a single
company in our industry that has margins that are excessive, and
yet we all feel guilty. We can't reduce prices any more without
going out of business. Back when a house cost $25,000, the 20
cell VersaBraille sold for $7,000. Now that same house sells for
$250,000, but a Navigator with 40 cells or KeyBraille with 45
cells sells for $7,000. Our industry is sick, and it is
struggling to stay alive because we've lost our perspective. The
lowest price is not always the best solution.
     5. In the 1990s we will see an increase in speech input
devices. Dragon Dictate has made major strides in the last six
months. Global communications will increase, and blind people in
Kansas will be using their computers to communicate with people
in Holland. Satellite networks will link the world and provide
instant access to data. Banking, shopping, news, etc. will become
commonplace for all blind people who use computers, and not just
for the few power users of today. OCR systems will soon fit into
a laptop, so that truly portable and fast reading and writing
machines will be commonplace. Digitized speech will finally
become usable for text-to-speech. A full page of affordable
dynamic Braille might actually materialize by the year 2000. It
is fun to dream!
     Our mutual goal must be focused on solutions. We made
progress on pricing in the eighties, while simultaneously losing
valuable ground in support, training, and cash resources. We must
restore these things to their proper place. Constructive
competition rather than cutthroat tactics must mark the nineties.
Teamwork amongst developers both in and out of our industry and
with blind consumers is fundamental to a positive decade. NFB has
taken a key leadership role in organizing this conference, and it
deserves major credit for its vision.
     Let's create a great future together!