The Touch Glove is an interactive piece intended for a user to experience the touch environment in a new and exciting way. Now, understanding texture is not only experienced by one’s sense of touch, but with the help of this glove, texture and touch can be experienced through the use of visual cues as well. A touch sensor is located in the index finger and when a user touches different textured surfaces the sensor activates distinctive patterns of LED lights, which illuminate depending on the surface being felt.
The Touch Glove from Ally Seeley on Vimeo.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1: Materials and Tools Needed
Materials:
1 Aniomagic Schemer (Emerald)
5 Aniomagic lightboard sets (Emerald)
1 Aniomagic Custom Sensor – Circle
1 Aniomagic Plastic Battery Holder (CR2032)
1 Aniomagic Large Battery
Conductive thread
1 3 inch square of conductive fabric
1 3 inch square of resistive fabric
1 yard of cotton fabric
Small spool of non-conductive thread
Clear tape
Tools:
Needle
Scissors
Alligator clips
Computer with internet access
1 Aniomagic Schemer (Emerald)
5 Aniomagic lightboard sets (Emerald)
1 Aniomagic Custom Sensor – Circle
1 Aniomagic Plastic Battery Holder (CR2032)
1 Aniomagic Large Battery
Conductive thread
1 3 inch square of conductive fabric
1 3 inch square of resistive fabric
1 yard of cotton fabric
Small spool of non-conductive thread
Clear tape
Tools:
Needle
Scissors
Alligator clips
Computer with internet access
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
oh my
Basically I wanted to built a prototype glove for individuals with neurological limitations, that impair their sense of touch. If an individual maybe can't feel texture at all or as much as they would like then the glove could provide them with sensory information in visual form to the touch they are experiencing. The glove takes one version of receiving sensory information (touch) and turns it into a vision based experience. But really anyone can have fun with the glove!
Hope that helps a bit more.
sparkie
Мой блог
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/
(I am off-white. Do I get the P.C. free pass to laugh?)
.
Consider the two alternates:
"Have you thought of licensing this to[sic] made for autistim?"
and
"Have you thought of licensing this to[sic] made for children?
Which sentence properly conveys original intent? Can anyone truly claim it is the second?
Likewise, placing it first does not increase its significance or importance. Nor is this how information is conveyed in colloquial usage. Significance is NOT conveyed by position is English, but rather by spoken inflection.
To put it simply, again, there is nothing wrong with the phrase "autistic children".
To the author of this instructable, I apologize for derailing comments about your instructable. You have created a rather interesting glove that could have multiple applications in a number of fields.
To those interested, I was not worried about proper English, I was only pointing out a politically correct way of referring to children with Autism. Most teachers and those from the medical community who work with Autism, point out that there is a politically correct way of referring to those affected by different diseases and disabilities. Please search for the "educational resource information center", also known as ERIC.
To those who made ridiculous statements, please think twice before entering a conversation because you "feel" you are right or think differently.
To Juxtupose, thank you for standing up for yourself. I wish more people saw the world the way you do.
If one is going to require others to modify long-standing language patterns, one should have a good reason, and this particular issue, as with many in the P.C. realm, has none. (In fact, one wonders why, with such emphasis on deemphasizing the disorder relative to those who suffer with it, one would continue to insist on capitalizing the name of a disorder, autism, that grammatically should not be, a construction that DOES convey emphasis in English.)
This is much like the manufacture of the absurd term *polyamory to overcome perceived incorrect implications of the word "polygamy". Leaving aside the fact that the polyglotic hybridization in and of itself is linguistically untenable (the word should be either *multiamory or *polyagape" or even *polyeros") the fact is that the creation of the term was itself unnecessary, since the word it replaced did NOT suffer from the deficits it was supposed to ameliorate (namely that polygamy meant multiple marriages, and therefore did not apply to multiple liasons outside of marriage. While etymologically accurate, this is NOT what the term actually means in practico, as evidenced by its use in biology. Last I checked, neither polygamous nor monogamous species engaged in legally binding matrimonial unions.) As such, the original construction was sufficient, and there was no need to try to force a wholesale linguistic change.
Another (admittedly a bit more debatable, but far more accessible) example would be the mass social upheaval during the 70s that surrounded the, for the most part successful, attempt to get society to abandoned perceived sexist terms such as mailman, in favour first of the tortured, and later abandoned, "mail person", and later "postal worker". But that is another story altogether (though also an interesting trip into language origins).
Another, less debatable one, would be the now somewhat faltering push to force the adoption of the absurd, and unnecessary, neologism "Ms." (not necessary because the term Mrs already historically did NOT distinguish between married and unmarried women, unless the husband's first name was also used, and as such, could have just been linguistically re-expanded back to its original scope.)
Thanks
Thanks again