I was about to post this is News and Media, but it occurred to me that this might be more appropriate.

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/09/0...ism/16398/

I for one would like to see this countered by the marketing of non-proprietary alternatives.  I know that the distributions of Linux I've used all had accessibility software, including several things the article suggests the ip-odd is responsible for.

You could, of course, look for new and inovative ways to help employers adapt to us.....

There is demand for this, and it is putting power into the hands of Apple corp.  I was looking for a non-proprietary means of putting power in the hands of disabled people, like a free software foundation but specifically for adaptive technology.

One of the reasons that Apple's touch products are more effective at entraining attention is the Multi-Touch patents.

IMO, much of the positive result they've had with learning enhancement and iPads (and to a lesser extent iPods) is because of their distinctive touchscreen "tone" which acts like a very fast strobe directly into the brain.

This isn't very secret information so long as you're willing to go hunting for it, but it's not laid out anywhere in plain English... but:

Apple Multi-Touch in particular emits a strong local radio field designed to leech off small amounts of power into the user's fingertips. The power loss due to close proximity of flesh is measured and quantified, and is translated to touch events whenever the leech area is considered large enough to qualify as a finger (they base it on an average of 40 sq mm).

The tone itself is a 200KHz square-wave radio signal, separated into 320ms pulses fired sixty times a second when it's in Multi-Touch mode, and less often when it's in active-standby.

The very regular "beat" of the screen whenever one is in close proximity to it, and the rise in amplitude as more fingers are placed in the sensing field, constitutes an identifiable biofeedback signal.

Having tested the Apple touch products against comparable phones and tablets, the products that don't have Apple's patented two-stage touch recognition and the much stronger (more distant) pre-sensing ability are a) not as popular, and b) not as captivating.

Although all radio touchscreens are interacting with people's nervous systems directly using timed pulses, Apple's are by far the strongest. And iPad 3 is the strongest of their lineup as well, due to very thin glass separating the user from the induction circuits glued underneath.

It's probable, although not certain, that so long as Apple has the monopoly on the stronger, more effective touch detection technology it will remain the only company selling these products that's capable of showing a significant increase in people's attention and learning ability.

Are you spamming me or just being a dick?

Neither really, part of my work history is designing iPad stylus technology, and I have a background interest in biofeedback and cognitive science.

What you were saying reminded me of the results claimed with helping LFA children to form sentences, and with improvements in information retention in students and workers when exposed to Apple touch products.

I was trying to point out that, due to unadvertised neurological effects and their relationship to patented signals and hardware behaviour, it might not be feasible for other people to produce similar results unless they were really focussed on creating a psychodynamic effect on people.

Just trying to raise awareness.

Yeah, awareness of a product line.  Also called advertising, or spam.  

Owning a patent on it makes it proprietary.  I don't know of an organization dedicated to non-proprietary adaptive technology, and that's what I was hoping for.  I wasn't really looking for something that specifically violates one of Crapintosh's patents, or that is designed to funnel money to them or to the other evil empire (we know that there are two).  But it seems that here, like in many things, if there is such a thing, or if there is to be such a thing, it'll be one of those by us for us type things.  

Also, studies show that autistics improve language skills when given access to adaptive communicative technology in general, especially in the area of putting sentences together, so your magical "biofeedback" is really unnecessary.

You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear... I'm not advocating Apple's technology, I'm protesting it. Radio-based touch sensing is TERRIBLE for electrosensitives, in particular, and I think that exposing children to it is highly irresponsible.

But in relation to your topic, I was merely pointing out that the results people are claiming with these iPods may very well be Apple-specific. It's just an assumption that lookalike products would cause similar benefits, which is why I thought the detail was relevant.

I'd rather if you didn't respond with another flippantly abrasive message, I was trying to be helpful.

It was not clear from your post that you were being critical.  I am not at all paranoid about radio-wave emissions, as they are non-ionizing radiation and considerably less energetic than ordinary visible light.  But ***, anything's possible.  Maybe RF radiation is dangerous afterall, I wouldn't know, but I haven't heard of any studies concluding that there are any crap-in-a-box-specific effects at all, except for an irrational desire to buy or use their products, squared wave or cubed.  I'm not going to assume someone printing stuff about different shapes of waves has any feeling at all about some corporation or other. 

And what the hell lookalike products are you talking about?  I already said, I wasn't looking for something that Mac had crapped into the market, but a resource for open-source software, possibly hardware.  Here is the site for the free software foundation, if you're confused about what I'm looking for: http://www.fsf.org/  Here is distrowatch.com.  This stuff exists for software geared towards normals; I'm looking for something geared towards the rest of us.  Though it all comes with accessibility, it's not advertised (difficult to do so anyway) and the focus is free software in general, not disability accessibility.  

Adaptive technology geared toward autistics has existed for years, and can be a large financial burden for some families.  And most of it is saddled with the problems of proprietary IP, stuff which can't be adapted to the needs of the individual, which is especially destructive because our needs are so much more individual than others'.  There is a need for this that can be filled, and it doesn't have to turn disabled people into "the Apple Demographic."

This post was last modified: 09-11-2012 08:32 AM by Lang.