On a lighter note, the software knows what Shredded Wheat is (shame it did not 
know the size of box etc though) 
On 10 Jul 2010, at 18:53, Bryan Smart wrote:

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


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.

Reply via email to