[gui-talk] kindle book.

[Ed Lain]

May I add my experiences to those already related?I've found the 
discussion interesting. There is no right or wrong answer where 
braille v. recorded material is concerned. Each has its own 
advantages and disadvantages.

I began learning braille at age 8 and about the same time became the 
recipient of one of the first Talking Book machines, when, the 
program was launched back in the 1930s. I had a braille instructor 
who came to my home twice a week to teach me braille, spelling and 
math. He worked for one of the agencies established back then under 
President Roosevelt's administration. It was through his efforts that 
I obtained the Talkingbook machine, even though it was not until the 
early fifties that a program for children was initiated.

I have no idea what strings he pulled. I do recall him telling my dad 
that his uncle had a Talkingbook machine that he no longer wanted. 
Don't recall if he was in bad health or what the reason was. Anyway, 
I wound up with the machine. It is possible thatthe the former owner 
had purchased the machine, for, in 1934 that was the only way to 
obtain one. The machine cost anywhere from $35 to about $60. By 1935, 
machines were being made available free to blind individuals.

Consequently, though I had partial sight, I learned to read braille 
and had access to recorded material. We even had access to the sound 
track of Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs. I've appreciated the 
advancement in technology. With those big tube operated Talkingbook 
machines, we had to change needles every record or two. Records were 
12 inch discs with a combined recording time of 30 minutes. Often the 
machine would pick up the local radio station or a Ham operator. It 
was strange to hear voices coming from the machine when it was just 
sitting there not being used.

The advancement from those large discs to 8 rpm. to reel-to-reel 
recorders to cassetts and now digital players had really been a 
blessing for the blind. No more changing needles and no more getting 
tangled up with reel to reel tape players. I still have one as well 
as one of the last talkingbook machines issued some years ago.

As for braille, I was only average and, of course, with the onset of 
years my reading ability has slowed down, but I still prefer braille 
for some situations such as technical material and instructions. For 
fiction I like the tapes since they are faster and if I fall asleep I 
can rewind and read the material again. I'm retired, so, my time is my time.

Speed in reading braille is an individual matter. some of us are 
rapid readers, some average and some slow. There is a need and place 
for both braille and recorded material.

I recall at least three student in the school for the blind I 
attended, that were speed readers. One, a girl, was validictorian of 
my graduating class. She was such a rapid reader that she competed in 
a statewide contest against sighted readers and won first place. She 
didn't know what she was to read beforehand. It turned out to be 
Shakespear, which, she, of course, had to read out loud. Listers: we 
either have the ability to read rapidly or we don't. It is also true 
for those of us who have had sufficient sight to read some printed 
material, that one picture is worth a thousand words. Or is it ten 
thousand words? There's just no way to compare having sight with 
having to rely on touch. We can't compare oranges with apples.

Finally, I recall reading about a young man born blind. This occurred 
many years ago. Eventually, an operation restored his sight and they 
asked him to discribe three objects without touching them--an orange, 
a trangle, a square and a circle. He couldn't until he was allowed to 
touch them. Of the orange, he said after picking it up, "Oh, it looks 
like it feels."

Who knows what advancements in technology will bring for the blind in 
the next few years. I cannot imagine a time when braille in some form 
will not be needed. Let's enjoy the best of both worlds.

Ed Lain