Honestly, I feel seriously mixed about this.
The product may have the potential to make it easier for some blind people to read, but outside of that demographic it offers almost nothing but downsides. You get a theoretically simpler system that can scale to any font size, while losing nearly everything about braille that makes it worth while as a medium. As a result, I'm not comfortable with the idea that this is braille's ideal replacement, as presented by the article and company. the only thing they're doing that interests me is their work on tactile graphics. Competition in this space with APH and the NFB's efforts could be interesting, though I worry about the potential effect of spreading already thin resources to one more player in the industry.

It also worries me a little that there doesn't seem to be any blind people featured on their development team. There is a clear difference in philosophy between products designed by/with the blind, as compared to those designed for us. Designing with the blind in mind from the start allows product designers to get a more realistic understanding of our needs before production begins. In my opinion, both this article and the companies website reflect biases and misunderstandings of blind people and our wants and needs. Its a lot harder to change those attitudes and expectations once someone is committed to them.

Yet another group of sighted people perpetuating the myth that braille is difficult to impossible for most blind people to learn. Of course they're convinced ELIA is another tool in the toolbox while they're raising cash and getting positive press.

There are groups with sensory or intellectual issues that make learning to read braille difficult. If they were clearly only marketing the product to this population I would not mind, but they bundle this in with broad claims about braille which are the real issue in my opinion.

And for the rest of blind people that can be taught to read braille, why on earth would it seem like a good idea to teach them a tactile alphabet that is "easier to learn" but requires large amounts of tactile paper or perhaps a tactile graphics display in the future to read small amounts of text? Yes, it is faster to learn, but speed will inevitably be permanently bottlenecked, and the means of accessing it are relatively terrible. Why not address the reasons why able blind adults are not taught braille or lack sufficient access to it instead?

There's also key omissions in the article:

> “The other day, my wife was expressing how she missed writing me a note,” he says. “That’s difficult with braille.” With ELIA, he says, she wouldn’t even need to learn it, she could just type it in the ELIA font on a computer and print it out"

Yes, with a $3000 tactile printer they're developing (not sure how different it would be to something like the picture in a flash system?) and special paper. Braille embossers start at around $2000 new (but you can buy refurbished ones much cheaper) and do not require braille knowledge to use.

> "betting instead on visually impaired individuals using audio books or text-to-speech to read full-length books. “In general, sighted or not, we’re moving toward the fully digital book,” he says."

So ELIA is an essential tool for literacy, but also not likely to be used for reading longer text. Okay! And thankfully, we have refreshable braille displays.

> "increased audio book production and text-to-speech initiatives have made it easier for visually impaired individuals to have access to all types of literature. Audible.com has a large readership, both sighted and not, and the Library of Congress offers books in audio, available through both free digital player or iPhone app."

The NLS also offers downloadable electronic braille files, and Bookshare exists with hundreds of thousands of texts for a braille user.

I briefly checked out their website, which was no more promising. I find the following quote especially offensive:

> "The National Federation of the Blind rightly put it: “Literacy is the ability to read and write. While using speech output and recorded books is a way for students to gain information, it does not teach them reading and writing skills. Students who rely solely on listening as a means of learning find themselves deficient in areas like spelling and composition.”

The NFB is a champion for braille literacy. It is misleading and inappropriate to use this quote out of context.

I am certain that their product can be of substantial value to those who cannot learn to read braille for short reading and labeling tasks if they are able to market it better than older raised letter systems. There is no reason to make unnecessary claims about “redesigning braille” to accomplish this.

Editing to add: my relevant credential is having learned some braille as a teenager, and having substantially improved my reading skills as an adult. My reading speed is still growing with time, especially after I was finally able to replace my extremely dated notetaker with a slightly more modern one that can easily connect to my phone or computer.

Thanks for sharing, that was an interesting read.

I think it is important to keep in mind the original target client group for this system of tactile letters were those that were older. Therefore it is simplier and, it would appear, quick to pick up for use of reading basic elements.

The problem I see is that it is not suitable for long text. I'm not opposed to inventing something that is superior to Braille, I think that'd be great! But I can't deny that Braille works well for long text because of the contractions.

I also reject the assertion that audio books are going to completely surplant physical books. Current evidence does not support that theory, rather it shows that audio book consumption has grown while physical book consumption has also grown, just at a slower pace (I could be mistaken, but this was the case last I knew). There is a big difference to listening to a book and reading it yourself I find, and I much prefer the latter.

And a final thought: what is wrong with quarters? Honestly Americans, I fear for the day I start seeing/hearing "twoth/twoths".

Nope! Until I can write this in a way that doesn't require a computer or even electricity, count me out. If I've got to use a computer already, I might as well use TTS. One of the key strengths of Braille is that it can be produced and consumed without any technology more advanced than a slate.

I don't think this will work. I didn't read the intire article, I skimmed it. I don't use braille that much but I do have some questions: 1. will you be able to make books, articles and things like that accessible using this system?

2. How big are the letters?

3. Will they be making a printer that the blind can use? i know they will be making a 4000 dolllar printer, but will we be able to use it?

4. How big is this printer and how heavy is it?

5. Will this system be able to fit onto boxes, packages and botttles like Braille can.
The reason braille is used is because it is quick to read, once you get used to it, and it is small so can fit onto a bottle or box or sign. I don't know how big eatch letter is but will they be able to fit onto these types of items.

One more thing, if this new way of writing is introduced, will it change braille and will we have to learn a new way of reading and writing all over again? I wouldn't mind taking a look at this system but I doubt I'd use it.

To be honest, if this system took off and was a huge success, i'd probably stick to TTS.

I didn't mind moon, I didn't use it but didn't mind it. It was small and could still be read with one finger, as far as I remember. How many fingers will it take to read one lettter of this system, I wonder.