(no subject)
Apr. 9th, 2005 03:47 pmI'm going through looking at a new solution for dealing with clothes. Currently I have braille labels sewn into most clothes. This provides a serial number and an indication of light/medium/dark for washing. Unfortunatly the label tape I've been using is no longer sold. That's not surprising; normal braille labelers and braillers both fail to deal with it. You end up needing to have a soft metal sheet to hold it in position with the brailler to actually label the tape. Also, it is relatively hard to sew, and generally sucks. So it is unsurprising that it is no longer marketed. I think I'm mostly going to give up on having serial numbers for clothes; I don't own much that doesn't match with jeans, which is the only reason I'd need serial numbers. I'll have to be careful about dress clothes. It's surprising how few solutions have come along in the last 10 years for blind people dealing with clothes and that none of them actually seem to work. The most promising solution seems to be scanning UPC codes or other bar codes attached to the clothes. Even that is not quite ready for prime time yet.
As usual when looking at assistive products I found some amazingly useless and poorly marketed items. My favorite from this time around was a series of tactile dots you could attach to things. The product is probably useful but the description was perhaps overly imaginative. They proposed these dots would be ideal for labeling furnature. "Yep, that's a chair." I guess there are situations where furnature is identical accept for color, but they seem rare and for the most part avoidable.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-09 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-10 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-10 10:35 pm (UTC)maybe useless sugestion
Date: 2005-04-20 09:09 pm (UTC)Simplify
Date: 2005-04-23 06:28 am (UTC)Some things are tactically obvious: dress shirts versus polo versus t-shirt, slacks versus jeans. I'd recommend only owning stock clothes that will always match using only tactile sensations. The basic rule is this: all non-tacticle distinguishing features shall have a tacticle distinguishing feature in the hartmans wardrobe. Examples:
a. all dress shirts are white; if you want variety, only pick one other color (like blue) and use a different fabric such as microfiber or silk. But if you only wear dress shirts with black wool slacks, they will always match so it doesn't matter what color you pick.
b. all wool slacks are black; this is pretty standard. I don't have any non-black wool slacks. (dress shirt iff wool slacks)
c. all kakhis are white; they match better this way, I had some brown ones but they don't seem to match many things.
d. all polo shirts match white kakhis, this leaves it pretty open so that you don't care what color it is, only if it matches. (polo iff kakhis)
e. all jeans are blue - non-sequitur.
f. all t-shirts match blue-jeans (blue-jean iff t-shirt), this is almost any t-shirt
g. use a female or fashionable male to determine matching criteria; your average male is likely to give you bad advice.
Following the basic rule of tacticle distinguishment should allow you to create a variable yet matching wardrobe without the necessity of clumsy braille additions to your garments.
--arley
Re: Simplify
Date: 2005-04-24 03:53 am (UTC)I still want a solution for labeling some things. For example, taking the Longhorn shirt to an Apple conference would probably be a mistake. Shirts that say tasteless things have limited applicability, etc.
But really, keeping things simple is in fact the correct answer.