RFI Questions | American Printing House

What are your target physical dimensions, if any, for the product (length, width, thickness, weight)?

The target device will be small enough to fit in a child’s backpack and light enough for a 7 year-old to carry from class to class.

The existing dimensions of the Graphiti tested were 11X11.5 Inches with a tactile array size of 6X10. The tactile array size was acceptable to testers, while it was requested to have such a tactile surface in a smaller footprint. The thickness was acceptable at 1.25 inches.

It was written, “a smooth and instant response to commands and logical manipulation of user interface elements based on user experience are crucial.” Responding instantly to a command is one thing. What about the time it takes for an image to refresh?

Obviously the faster the refresh rate the better for such a tool. The focus here is that the user does not notice a lengthy refresh rate. Whether that is accomplished by refreshing only necessary pins, if a pin approach is used, or create an entire surface refresh rate process. Ideally the entire surface could be refreshed in less than 1 second. We are open to hearing alternative suggestions.

What is your target price range, if any, for this product? How would QUOTA funds be applied in the event that the product costs more than the annual per-student amount available?

It is realistic that a subsidized quota price would be different than the non-quota price. The ideal quota price would be no more than $5,000. We understand that such a price may not be achievable at launch, and APH will work with the Department of Education and other funders to find ways to subsidize this important educational tool.

On page 9 of the RFI document under “Technology and Hardware Considerations section: “zooming in on a specific location of a graphic, shifting the graphic side-to-side if it cannot be captured fully/comfortably within a confined area/page size”. What would the page size be? How large would the tactile image be relative to the page size?

The term page size, in this case refers to the pin array. APH, during its time testing with the Graphiti determined a pin array of 2400 pins was sufficient for students to interpret content. If the graphic was too large relative to the pin array, the user should be able to zoom out, to gain context of the graphic prior to zooming back in on certain sections. The future device will need to have image processing capabilities to ensure that the image is scaled on the available tactile surface. If the image is initially too large for the surface, it would be scaled to fit when first loaded.

What are the dot pin resolutions required to support the available tactile graphics files? What is the minimum dot pin resolution that is acceptable? Is the target "Braille graphics" as would be displayed on an embossed Braille page, or something else?

It is expected that the device will possess software which will optimize graphics to fit on its tactile surface. Ideally such a device would display graphics as close to embossed braille quality, however we acknowledge compromises will need to occur.

If and when such a device were to be used to display braille content, ideally it would present braille as close to the standard set by the National Library Service:

34 mm pin to pin in a cell
24 pin to pin between a cell left and right
10 mm from line to line pin to pin

During the time receiving feedback with the Graphiti, it was identified that the following dimensions produced very legible braille content when using a pin approach:

5 mm pin to pin in cell
5 mm pin to pin between cells
10 mm between lines, however this could be slightly reduced if need be

In terms of touch input functionality that can enable gestures to activate specific functions, what is the desired method, if any, implemented on the product? Is the expectation that touch input would work in the braille dot active area or in a separate touch input area (i.e. Touchpad)?

We are absolutely open to any suggestions during this RFI process. We urge you to submit these suggestions and feature recommendations as part of your RFI response. During our time testing with the Graphiti, there was significant success achieved when students were able to touch the pin area and pins themselves to control zooming, scrolling, and locating. It is possible that a separate touch segment or scrolling control on the device could be beneficial as well for navigation purposes.

In the use cases, there is mention of the use of differing levels of shading in different ways and granularities that would allow students to observe features on images such as maps. In the product, is it required that topographical height of the dot pins alone be used for this method, or are other means such as blinking, strobing, animation, and/or audio feedback also acceptable?

We are open to other methods of representing shading. During our time testing with the Graphiti, we observed that with such graphics as maps, different dot heights were an effective way of representing different shades of content. This was not effective for all graphics, such as portraits.

For height variation of the dot pins; how much height variation between pins is required? What minimum number of discrete dot pin heights or levels are required?

Once again we are open to all suggestions. During our time testing with Graphiti, 4 varying dot heights were available. It was not observed that more variations were necessary.

Would you consider a device that does not use pins to represent graphical content?

APH is considering all technologies that achieve the tactile and educational goals set forth in this RFI.

Is there a specific requirement for refresh rate (either per-dot or full-screen)?

During our testing with the Graphiti, there were two refresh times observed. The first load refresh time, which took into account the need to process the image and scale it to the size of the array, and the second, to refresh the pins. It is understood that this initial load time would be slightly longer than the general refresh rate. Ideally the tactile surface could refresh in less than 1 second. This could occur on a pin by pin occurrence, only refreshing the pins that need to refresh, or by refreshing the entire array at once. The primary goal is that the refresh rate does not become a hindrance when using the device.

Given that not all features need to be present in an initial product, would the proposed 2022-2023 delivery date be for a product with all required features, or would a later date for a full-featured version be possible?

This product and partnership is a long-term investment for APH and the partner/partners they select. This product will evolve over the next several years after initial launch.

Do you envision this device being used to represent both graphical and braille content?

Yes ideally this tool could represent both forms of content. However if representing braille content, a user who is reading a text book or longer braille passage should feel similar pin separation to the standard that is felt when reading embossed braille. It is understood that it may not be possible to achieve the pin and cell separation standardized by the National Library Service, but ideally the separation by this device would be close enough where it would be nearly indistinguishable.

Would APH be open to the provider retaining full branding and marketing rights, so long as the functions and features meet APH’s requirements?

The terms of the business partnership will be discussed with the selected partner/partners. The Dynamic Tactile Device will be at minimum, a co-branded APH product.

Are direct support for LOUIS databased and/or NIMAC repository files envisioned or required?

Yes

On page 5 of the RFI document it is written under the “Five Years of Work on the Graphiti” section, “APH determined the best size and weight for students to be able to carry a tactile graphic display from class to class”. What was the size and weight determination?

The device needs to be able to fit in a child’s backpack along with books and other materials and be carried from class to class by a child who is 7 years of age. The Graphiti’s pin array was 40X60 pins making a total array of 2400 pins. Such a size for the graphics surface was acceptable and generally efficient for them to process the information. The dimensions of the Graphiti tested were 11X11.5 inches and 1.25 inches thick.

For a student to carry such a device in their backpack the dimensions of the device footprint would need to be reduced. The thickness of 1.25 inches was acceptable.

Obviously the lighter the weight the better it will be for a student to carry. Ideally such a device would be lighter than 4 lbs.

RFI Clarification Questions Submitted By Respondents