Notes - Guideline Subgroup - 8-31-2015

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Participants

  • Mia Lipner­ Global Accessibility Team at Pearson
  • Naomi and BJ­ Lighthouse
  • Lisa – Benetech
  • Lucia­ Diagram and Co­chair of the content group
  • Abby­ CU Boulder, Tactile Picture Book Project
  • George­ Diagram standards work Daisy consortium, Learning Ally
  • Jim Allan­ Texas School for the Blind
  • Brian McDonald­ NBP, Diagram Center
  • Andrew Melton and Fred Otto­ American Printing House for the Blind

  Organizational Concerns

  • Will start a Wiki with meeting notes/content
  • Brian (Boston): Needs access to Google Drive

Jim­ Check­In:

  • Going through BANA and converting all the points/millimeters
  • Collecting existing sources of tactile graphics and 3D printing standards
    • Creating tactile graphics
    • Designing Tactile Graphics­ tactile maps
    • Research on the discriminability of tactile graphics­ James and Gill
    • Tactile Map Editor
    • Haptic Graphic Guidelines ATPC
    • Etc.
  • Looking at 2D sources for guidance on how to create 3D guidelines  

Goal of the Group:

  • How do we ensure that 3D printed objects will be useable and accessible?
  • Our goal is to come up with the accessibility standards­­making sure that the braille is discernible and the objects are discernible in a useful way.

Discussion:  What is relevant from the existing guidelines?

Fred:

  • What is the use the technology?
  • There are different types of standards that need to be created

Lucia:

  • When is it appropriate for things to be in 3D format?
  • Working on a decision tree

Possible Uses of 3D

  • Moveable
  • 3D views
  • Connectable
  • Perspectives

Note: The current technology has limitations in quality and height­ 3D printers can support 2.5

Mia:

A 3D printer can be used to create 2.5D graphics, due to their availability (over embossers)

  • Should we focus on 3D models, that you can hold in your hand? Or should it be on things like maps and charts, ­­things with minimal reliefs?
  • Including other kids who are tactile learners in general­ the technology is prevalent

Discussion: Form Factors:

2.5 D Format

  • ● Tactile maps
  • ● Basic symbols:
    • ○ 2.75 D­ things that are more nuanced than can be done on an embosser
    • Ramps
    • Research from APH for Thermoform technologies (vs. swell and embossers)
    • Lines and texture patterns
    • Lighthouse has a collection of researched symbols→
    • BJ will talk to Josh Meally about the research
    • BANA included many of these standards into the 2D Standards
    • Canadian Literacy Foundation reviewed what was discriminable for 2D­­
    • What makes it discriminable?

2.75 D Format ­ Contextualizing Information

Taking 2.5D and doing a little more; rather than using a symbol to make the association, use representation­­ Elevation (hills, valleys, buildings, rams, stairs)­­which provides more tactile context. 

3D Format­

  • Should we focus on 3D models, that you can hold in your hand?
  • STEM content

Action Items

  • Brian: Researchers with RNIB are working on 3D Materials
  • George: Should check in with the Daisy Board about their current research
  • Lucia: Decision Tree
  • BJ:  Talk to Josh Meally about standards
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.