Talk:Interactive whiteboard

message: 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)
thread_title: Tidy Up

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SMART Technologies 

message: I recommend reverting to a SPAM-free version of this page. It looks very much a marketing person has been busy adding references to a very narrow spectrum of research that is cited to create a favorable impression of Promethean products.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarmenSD (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of biased information 

message: solve using simultanious equation (matrices form)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.68.228 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  matrices 

message: There is an emerging knock off interactive whiteboards using the wiimote with acceptance in the education field.  It might be worth adding but I certainly am not bold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.186.166 (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The infrared pen can be cheaper than even the Bluetooth dongle. I took the infrared pen from a TV remote, for example. You could also buy a sensor bar and remove the LED. Some cheap LED flashlights have such simple designs, that you can remove the LED with nothing more than a screwdriver, if even that, and replace the LED with an infrared one. To test your IR pen, just use a digital camera (webcams and camera-phones count) to watch the light. Digital cameras are sensitive to IR light, and can be quite useful in this test. This drops the price from $50 to, in my case, free, as I had all the parts lying around. NickNackGus (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiimote 

message: Indeed this article does feel like sales people have been using it to promote their products. I've removed the following, I feel it needs improving:
"With classroom response and interactive whiteboard systems combined, teachers can present material and receive feedback from students in order to direct instruction more effectively as well as carry out formal assessments.  For example, the interactive whiteboard allows students to solve puzzles and math problems and then demonstrate their knowledge through a test. The test would be delivered via the classroom response system. Classroom Response Software is also available in order to organize and develop activities and tests based on State Standards."
- the same is true of chalk and blackboards, or students writing in books. I am concerned about the unproven/ referenced "more effectively" part of the above. Plus "State Standards" is US bias. I assume they mean US States anyway rather than nation states? Again no reference to which standards.--mgaved (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More rigour required

message: I categorized the technologies in a different way. Also some statements lack references.
Changes in detail:
Removed this sentence because it lacks evidence: 
"The most commercially successful and widely encountered Interative Whiteboards offer either resistive or electromagnetic operation."
The separation between "Resistive", "Electromagnetic" and "Others" does not make much sense. I propose following separation:
* Resistive
* Electromagnetic
* Capacitive
* Optical
# Infrared light-curtain (former "Optical and Infrared")
# Laser light-curtain
# FTIR
# Camera pen and Dot Pattern
# WiiMote
* Ultrasonic
193.170.124.186 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Split electromagnetic into active and passive methods 193.170.124.186 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up "Interactive Whiteboard Technologies"  

message: There is an article Smart whiteboard which I think should be merged with this one as they are essentially covering the same topic. RicDod (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They are both about the same topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I also agree. The objects are basically the same. The discussion about smart or not smart is superficial as there are not two such products as smart and dumb whiteboards. Each whiteboard has different but similar capabilities and working principles.Cancellationterms (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Support merge per nom. I'll likely do it tomorrow.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interactive whiteboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620213815/http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/06/do_whiteboards_engage_students.html to http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/06/do_whiteboards_engage_students.html
*Added  tag to http://jtie.upol.cz/clanky/Reflections_on_the_Use_of_Interactive_Whiteboards_in_Instruction_in_International_Context.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When writing for a non-technical audience, it helps to connect processes to a physical counterpart.  It would help a lot to begin with an explanation of a basic setup such as its component parts.  That physical breakdown of component parts would then allow one to use parallel structure to discuss what things an IWB system can do depending on the various component parts.
For example, I expected to see a breakdown of hardware such as (1) a PC to run and coordinate the setup, (2) a whiteboard, (3) a projector, (4) some sort of camera or video capture device, and (5) any optional peripherals, such as IR pens.  (Is this an accurate breakdown, or is the topic broader or more fluid than that?  If more fluid, could we begin with one concrete example first, then explain how different components of different categories might overlap?) This helps readers to get a visual picture in their minds.  An explanation like that would also connect better to the final sentence of the first paragraph about where one will see IWB's.
***
As for the 2d sentence in P1: 
    "It can either be a standalone touchscreen computer used independently to perform tasks and operations, or a connectable apparatus used as a touchpad to control computers from a projector."
I don't understand this sentence.  ATM's, self-service checkouts, and self-check-in kiosks at the airport are all "standalone touchscreen computers", aren't they?  I cannot understand the remainder of the sentence.  It brings to mind the picture of someone controlling a whiteboard screen from a tablet?  Or perhaps it means that the entire whiteboard is some kind of interactive screen like a mega-sized smartphone screen? 
***
Under the section General Operation and Use, the first sentence: 
    "An interactive whiteboard (IWB) device can either be a standalone computer or a large, functioning touchpad for computers to use."  
This description sounds like it is a giant, white-board sized interactive TV screen that has a computer built into it?
It seems that the paragraph about the device driver and and calibration seem like they should be under a subheading called "Setup"?  Also, where are the drivers being installed: on the PC, Projector, some over-sized TV screen? (Further, is setup information even needed in an article like this?)   The third paragraph "thus" is a conclusion that should be included in the second paragraph.  The others can then be placed under a subheading called "Operation".  
Then, the paragraph beginning "In addition, most IWBs are supplied with software " At this point, I, as a consumer, have no idea  what is being discussed.  What, exactly, is an IWB at this point?  Also, depending on the specific component, I would expect a range of apps, drivers, or software might be necessary.  I am not sure this is necessary? 
 I have looked as some video projectors that have integrated cameras that will turn a whiteboard into an IWB, but I cannot tell if authors are discussing something in any way similar?  As far as software, I know that some manufacturers have proprietary software that comes with the projectors, but is that what they are talking about?
  
I came to this page as a business consumer wanting information.  I am tech savvy for a consumer or end user, but that is it.  My suggestions are based on my confusion reading the article so that someone with more expertise may explain it better to those of us in the masses.  My apologies if this hurts anyone's feelings.
Jeramee
Dr.Jeramee (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Organization and Use of Jargon 

message: Note: I am a newbie to Wikipedia editing, and this is my first article.  I appreciate everyone's patience.
Graphics: 
I find this article confusing.  While much of the writing is confusing, I think that some graphics could help.  (That being said, I just found a 2006 version of the introduction to this article, and it is so much clearer!)  For example, on the webpage below, if one scrolls down to the bottom of the page, there is a nice diagram showing the basic setup of the hardware with captions to explain certain ideas.  I could make graphics that would be similar to what is on the webpage.  The goal would be to have a graphic representation for each "Common Type of Operation" to help the reader envision the form factor.  
(I am not sure what the rules are for adding graphics to articles.  Is there a style guide to consult?)
 https://www.ipevo.com/products/iw2
Rename Common Types of Operation?
First, the Common Types of Operation is a reference to form factors.  Here's the definition:
     Form factor is an aspect of hardware design which defines and prescribes the size, shape, and other physical specifications of components, particularly in consumer electronics and electronic packaging.[1][2] A form factor may represent a broad class of similarly sized components, or it may prescribe a specific standard.
Source: Wikipedia - Form Factor  
Whether it is a resistive touch or IR pen, those are descriptions of the form factor types.  If we choose to keep the term Form Factor in the introduction, then we must change the name of this section to something like "Mode of Operation by Form Factor.  In technical writing, once a technical term has been introduced, that term should be used consistently.  When I come down to this section and see a discussion of actual form factors, but the section fails to use the term, that is weirdly confusing. 
The first sentence of the article: 
     An interactive whiteboard (IWB) also commonly known as Interactive board or Smart boards is a large interactive display in the form factor of a whiteboard.
Second, Form Factor is technological jargon.  The term has a strict meaning of an exact size for certain things, such as the dimensions of a motherboard and related specifications, or a looser meaning such as a smartphone.  Usually, Form Factors apply to electronics, not stationary objects like white boards.  If we keep the term, then (1) it should not be used in reference to a white board alone, but as a configuration between the white board and accompanying hardware, and (2) while the hyperlinked definition is helpful, we should add a  sentence clause giving a quick explanation of the term because not all of the definition show up when one hovers over it.
 This a confusing use of the term, especially especially considering the next sentence:
     It can either be a standalone touchscreen computer used independently to perform tasks and operations, or a connectable apparatus used as a touchpad to control computers from a projector.
This sentence seems to be discussing form factor more than the first sentence?  Also, the sentence is incorrect in general.  "It can be" implies a coming explanation of form factors for an IWB, and, as Common Types of Operation shows, there are more than just the two options.  Perhaps this sentence just needs deletion?
However, before deciding about this, please check the suggestion to revert to the 2006 introduction that I will post shortly.  I recently came across an old version of this page, and its introduction is MUCH clearer.  If we revert to the old introduction, I believe that adding graphics would still be helpful for this page.
Sincerely, 
Jeramee
Dr.Jeramee (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Graphics under Common Types of Operation, also Rename?