Talk:Telecommunications device for the deaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deafness and Deaf culture.

For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Fix up

When I get a chance I'll make this into a prettier article. I'll take a photo of my TDD and whack it in there as well.

Righteo, I did the subheadings, the TOC, photo and etiquette section. The other text I did not modify. Let me know what you think, break it is you want :)

The photo is released to the public domain, do anything you like with it.

--Sclozza 11:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of word "Minicom"

In the UK the word "Minicom" is used far more commonly than "textphone" but I'm not too sure how exactly to add it in the page - should I put in something like " In Europe, the term textphone is more commonly used, although in the UK the word "minicom" is widely used despite that this word is named after a brand of a TTD made by Ultratec". There's "proof" as sorts here: http://www.teletec.co.uk/minicoms/

What's your thoughts?

--EnglishDude 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm from the UK, and have never heard the thing referred to as a 'minicom.' I think the statement "In the United Kingdom the usual term is minicom" is misleading. The page you link to refers to "their range of text telephones developed specifically for the UK" and only uses the word 'minicom' in the context of a brand name. Njál 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have always called it a minicom, but I think thar "textphone/text phone/text-phone" is the current more common term - definitely by organisations. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33 22 December 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Although there was only the nominator's opinion in favor of a move and one person's weak opposition for a move, I feel that the singular is a better name. It is singular in the American Heritage Dictionary and comes up with 331,000 Google results vs. 56,700 for the plural (85%). Finally, while not invariable, the singular form is usually preferred for article titles. If anyone opposes my decision, let me know and I will reconsider. You also have my support if you want to just go through the requested move process again in case immediate re-requests are frowned upon. -- Kjkolb 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunications devices for the deaf → Telecommunications device for the deaf … Rationale: Per WP:NAME, article titles should be singular. The target name has a redirect to the page which contains trivial edit history (one stub version, then the redirect). If you have any comments, please add them below. Hairy Dude 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose The guideline cited is not invariable (see Complex numbers, and the plural probably makes better links. Septentrionalis 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Use of the word TDD

The phrase TDD is not considered politically correct in the United States. This is because users with cognitive language impariments, among others, use the TTY devices as well. The article should be modified to use the phrases "TTY/TDD" and "Text Telephone" as a replacement for "TDD" and "Telecommunications device for the deaf" respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.135.206 (talk • contribs)

That's interesting. Here in Australia I've never heard them called TDDs, only TTYs or telephone typewriters, and they are certainly used by hearing people (with speech impairments etc) here too. The article suggests that other terms are common in Europe, which leads me to wonder if the term TDD is a North American thing? One (US) website makes the following claim: "Many people use the two terms interchangeably, while others use TTY for mechanical teleprinters and TDD for the modern electronic gadgets which perform the same function in a fraction of the size and weight."

[edit] All TDD's are TTYs

Not all TTYs are TDDs. the TTY was invented in the 1930s and became popular in the 50s mostly for military use. The initials TTY stands for TeleTYpe and is a military designation having nothing to do with deafness. I had a model 50 Teletype that was made in the 1940s and it worked fine over the telephone at 50 baud but typed in all upper case. The use of TTYs for deaf communication was practiced by deaf ham radio operators long before the TDD or was conceived. Robert Weitbrecht invented nothing, that is why articles state that he is credited with inventing the TTY. It is known that many TTYs were used for deaf communication prior to 1960. Robert Weitbrecht did successfully popularize and helped standardize the device and deserves credit for that.

Comparing a goole search for TTY vs one for TDD makes me wonder if the article should not in fact be renamed TTY? ntennis 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software TTY/TDD and commercial links

I've been struggling with trying to determine who makes TTY/TDD software applications, voice modems, etc. and am wondering if it would go against the scope of Wikipedia to include a list of available resources to this Wikipedia page. Normally links to commercial vendors from the wiki are frowned on which is why I'm proposing the idea here. So far I've found

  • myTTY for Windows manufactured by IDRT. It does not look like the product has been updated since 2004 but that it works with Windows 98 and has a patch available for "all Windows operating systems" though I have no idea if that means it'll work with Vista for example. This is a software-only package meaning you also need to get a voice modem (not a standard modem).
  • NexTalk-VM for Windows manufactured by NXi Communications. NXi sells the software with a voice modem as a package though they say they will sell you the software only if you have a compatible voice modem. They do not have a list of compatible devices though.
  • CallTTY for Windows manufactured by DXsoft. This is aimed at the HAM radio market and entails that you construct an interface circuit. One benefit is that it uses a standard sound card and not the much harder to find voice modem.

Voice Modems - Would any V.253 standard modem qualify or do I need to look for something else?

The following are included for completeness but it looks like the companies offering them are out of business as of 2007.

  • Fulltalk for Windows manufactured by Microflip, Inc. This is an ISA voice modem card meaning it will not work with newer PCI-only computers. The Microflip web site is down and it's assumed this company is no longer in business.
  • Futura-TTY for MS-DOS and maybe Windows manufactured by Phone-TTY, Inc.
  • SoftTTY for the Macintosh.

I've deliberately not linked to the vendor's web sites as to not run afoul of linking policies. The frustration is that with a voice modem it would seem straightforward enough to generate the Baudot signaling codes meaning TTY/TTD software should be common but isn't. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scammer Usage

Could this article use a mention of how this service is rife with scammers using it to fleece people? Operators for this service are not allowed, by law, to say anything other than what is typed by the "user," so they are forced to be complicit in scamming folks. I understand such calls are a high percentage (majority even?) of the usage of this service. OR isn't allowed, of course, but there's bound to be some useful info out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.46 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 July 2007

This does not seem to be a problem with TTY but rather Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) which already has a section on the scammers at Telecommunications Relay Service#Fraudulent uses. A google for tty scammers finds articles from 2004. Is this still a current problem? Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
However most scams come through Internet Relay calls, not by TTY users.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MCM Brochure.jpg

Image:MCM Brochure.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current status?

I'd be interested in seeing a section on the current status in the deaf community of TTY/TDD vs. things like instant messaging and cell phone texting (SMS). --agr (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

I am an infrequent contributor, so I won't pretend to know all about the authoring and editing process. I encountered this article during the course of research. It would be nice to have some more authoritative sources referenced (if such exist). At first pass, I found no way to validate the historical account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.60.38 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)