Talk:Interactive whiteboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Citing Sources

Started to add some correctly formatted citations


[edit] Tidy Up

There was a lot of repetition... Tried to tidy it up and build up the validity of research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.85.39 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge

Support merge only because the other page was initially a redirect But maybe since SmartBoard is the only one of it's kind I know about, it should have it's own section in this article---E-Bod 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)-E-Bod 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) --E-Bod 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Support merge, SmartBoard is a brand name and not the only manufacturer of similar technology. Interactive Whiteboard is a more generic and appropriate terminology.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.120.198 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 April 2006.

Support merge under generic name "Interactive Whiteboard", with SmartBoard listed as a proprietary manufacturer. "SmartBoard" is, itself, a brandname but not a good generic term, since the boards themselves aren't smart - often it's the laptop connected to the board which provides the applications, handwriting recognition and so on. "Interactive" is a better term because it doesn't rely on gimmicky terminology, although in truth all conventional whiteboards are already interactive - you write on them and can print from them for example. "Computerised Whiteboard" would be the most appropriate term, because it captures the essential difference from previous offerings (which only added a printer).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.12.172.254 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 May 2006.

I have merged them. Feel free to clean up the article because while a secion on SmartBoard seems weird as they were just merged, I didn't want to go too far.--E-Bod 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just cleaned up that whole area and put all the different brands under one section, which I think works better. (No sense in having whole sections of just a few sentences on different brands.) I'm not totally sure about the title of the unified section ("Common Interactive Whiteboard Brands"), because in all my work-related travels I've never heard of or encountered that ONfinity one - seems to be more of a different approach to interactive whiteboards than a widespread or popular brand. Also there are a couple of fairly common brands not represented there yet (Hitachi for one) which I don't have time to add right now. It's an improvement, I think, but I don't think much will be achieved by just listing various equipment manufacturers (or anything beyond a name and website link, I guess).--Matticus78 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM

Having checked all the 'External Links' and Software', I cannot find one that is not spam. I have therefore deleted them. If you want to check for yourself, here they are again:

SMART EDUCATION Classroom Resources & Training and Support for busy teachers, teaching assistants, trainers, tutors and students.FREE to register.

CS46 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I thing we should also delete the links to specific manufacturers' web sites within the 'Common Interactive Whiteboard Brands' section, though maybe still mentioning their names. Any comments?
CS46 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Depends, if the subject of an article is proprietary to a few companies, i.e. patents held on key technology, those companies may be mentioned by name. (I don't know the market, "Common" brands suggests this is not the case though.) Otherwise, no article on a generic product or technological concept needs a listing of manufacturers. Their inline extlinks have to go in any case. If a particular brand is notable it will have its own page (there's mimio for example), those articles might be listed in the seealso, but that's the most I'd keep. Femto 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The main technologies are described under 'How it works' - I guess some of these are patented technologies, but not sure at present. As to having their own page, the History indicates that the SMARTBoard page was merged into this and this has been expanded into the section 'Common Interactive Whiteboard Brands'. I'm a bit new to Wiki, so am unsure how this should be dealt with. Should we recreate the 'SMARTBoard' page, or delete 'mimio' page? CS46 20:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed the section. (here's the diff in case anybody misses an overly promotional listing of brands) Femto 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, if the Mimio page is allowed to exist, then the SMARTBoard page should be reinstated and not redirected here. SMARTBoard is a trademark and not a generic term for Interactive Whiteboards. --gg4rest 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I felt if one then all. Glad to see all products are deleted. I think Accessories and Research are also very lame. A printer is a white board accessory? --Rcollman 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{advert}}

The article calls these things a revolution and whatnot and how there are 750,000 installed worldwide, well, compared to how many overhead projectors there must be in the world, that's still not a lot, and certainly not enough for a revolution... needs some npoving. - ∅ (∅), 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The Wankel engine was revolutionary (in more than one sense) and numbers were not relevant - nor are they in this case.
2. We have already removed the adverts. I now remove the {{advert}}.
CS46 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this page has a definite bias towards them, you can tell it was written by someone who sells them which isn't good. I'm also a computer programmer and AV tech and it still took me a while to figure out what the article is. Interactive whiteboard = Touch screen projector. Paige Master 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree its not easy for the uninitiated at first glance to work out from this article what it is all about, but I don't believe that it's biased towards any one particular manufacturer/supplier now - compare revision as of 19:50, 21 August 2006 [1].
CS46 22:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm meaning it's bias in the "Interactive Whiteboards will take over the world" kind of way. If you compare this article to the blackboard and whiteboard articles where both have a list of advantages and disadvantages of the products. For one thing these probably cost tons compared to a whiteboard/blackboard, require power, require associated equipment and knowledge of how to work it ect. Paige Master 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood. It's just that your comments were under the {{advert}} heading. I agree the article could be improved as you suggest. CS46 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "research into the market"

This section was uncited and looked somewhat suspicious to me, so I have moved it here. If anyone can provide a citation to the results and quality of the research, feel free to move this back to the article. Vectro 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

see www.dtc-worldwide.com for company details --86.137.160.161 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's an inadequate citation. Please see guidelines for Citing Sources and for what constitutes a Reliable Source. Until then, I've removed the section again. Vectro 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The source is highly reliable. We are the only company in the world who specialise in tracking the IWB market. See the SMART Board (largest manufacturer) website: http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-US/About+Us/News+Room/Media+Releases/2007+Media+Releases.htm?guid={69CB5B0F-09FD-4593-B78D-2BE41BC42C4C} also type "colin messenger" in Google and you will see numerous mentions - Hope that is OK. I have re-instated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmessenger (talk • contribs)
Colin, I'm afraid you've still failed to provide any citations. It's not enough to link to the DTC website; you need to cite a published study reflecting the results you want to summarize. In addition, per WP:V and because the material is (presumably) self-published, you need to demonstrate that DTC is "produced by a well-known, professional research [company] in a relevant field." Please don't re-add this material without meeting these requirements; it is considered Vandalism. If you have questions feel free to post them here and I'll do my best to help. Cheers, Vectro 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Our citation is that there are numerous worldwide articles quoting our research with the information we want to display here, and that we are quoted on the website of the largest IWB manufacturer: SMART Board, see link above, surely this demonstrates that we are a well-known, professional research company? --Colinmessenger 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read wikipedia policy on Citing Sources. A handwavy claim about "numerous worldwide articles" is not a citation; it's unsourced. The link from SMART is not a reliable source; please read these policies rather than assuming what they state. Vectro 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SMART Technologies

Please see the notability discussion for a sub-article of this topic at Talk:SMART Board interactive whiteboard. I say that page is an inappropriate content fork for an over-specific description of a commercial product. 84.129.170.22 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)