I wanted to amend part of what I wrote yesterday...

I do think that for clients who have an access method other than eye gaze,
it's safer to use to use a conventional computer for browsing the internet,
watching TV online, etc.

However, people who are using eye gaze as an access method don't have that
option.
---------------

I have worked with a couple of people who seemed to have problems on their
eye gaze system because there just wasn't enough RAM memory.  (For example,
one person couldn't use the eye gaze and have anti-virus software running at
the same time.)

--------------

My suggestion-

Why don't we (as a group) write a joint letter to the vendor(s), detailing
some of the problems we have had? (I'm thinking in particular of the
problems with eye gaze systems and RAM memory.) I think a mass letter,
signed by multiple SLPs/AT Specialists might have more weight than
individual complaints.  (Maybe we could ask people from the ASHA AAC SIG to
contribute also?)

Maybe we could specifically ask for more RAM memory on the eye gaze systems?
I could be wrong, but that seems to be the source of some of the problems.

Just my two cents,

Margaret Cotts

P.S. Ed, I have a laptop with lots of RAM memory, and I watch Hulu and
streaming videos all the time, pretty much every day without problems...

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Hitchcock
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:03 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: using SGDs vs modifying computers

But I do think that clients have to be realistic that these devices may
not be able to do it all.  On the other hand, I occasionally try
streaming live TV or even Hulu on my own home computer, which is not
absolutely top of the line, but not as slow as a DynaVox either, and the
experience of it is spotty at best.  So some of this is that the
technology is not there yet in any case.

Ed Hitchcock OT/L
Technology Center
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago