Jump to content

Talk:Interactive whiteboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Also

[edit]

Unusual for wikipedia articles, there is no "see also" list at the bottom of the page. Presumably because if you linked it to related phenomena, you would have to associate it with Ultranet, Mixed Reality, and The Matrix. Which you certainly wouldnt want to force on young children.

Tidy Up

[edit]

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)[reply]

merge

[edit]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SPAM

[edit]

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:

IWB User group non commercial

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

{{advert}}

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"research into the market"

[edit]

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)[reply]

see www.dtc-worldwide.com for company details --86.137.160.161 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

SMART Technologies

[edit]

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)[reply]

Removal of biased information

[edit]

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)[reply]

matrices

[edit]

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

wiimote

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More rigour required

[edit]

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)[reply]

Tidy up "Interactive Whiteboard Technologies"

[edit]

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
  1. Infrared light-curtain (former "Optical and Infrared")
  2. Laser light-curtain
  3. FTIR
  4. Camera pen and Dot Pattern
  5. WiiMote
  • Ultrasonic

193.170.124.186 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split electromagnetic into active and passive methods 193.170.124.186 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that "Common types of operation" and "Interactive whiteboard technologies" overlap partially, both describing common technologies.

Also, "Academic literature reviews and research" is found in the middle of the article. I guess it's supposed to be at the end?

And are you guys sure it's Triangulation and not Trilateration? Because when mesuring a signal arrival time the data you can use is the distance, not the angle. Or am I getting it wrong? Znero0 (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger

[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree. They are both about the same topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support merge per nom. I'll likely do it tomorrow.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Organization and Use of Jargon

[edit]

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)[reply]

Add Graphics under Common Types of Operation, also Rename?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Revert to Earlier Introduction with revisions; Form Factors, an Overall Restructuring.

[edit]

Revert to Earlier Intro w/ revisions:

I have noted several times that the writing on this page is confusing. In contrast, please look at an earlier version of this pages introduction. I expected to read an introduction similar to the the earlier version that tells the reader what this IWB-thing is made out of and what it does. The earlier definition sets a clear idea in the reader's mind to understand what is being discussed. While a reader expects an introductory definition like that, the introduction on the page currently is confusing. 

    An Interactive Whiteboard is a dry-erase whiteboard writing surface which can capture writing electronically. Interactive whiteboards require a computer. Some interactive whiteboards also allow interaction with a projected computer image. They are most commonly used in the office or classroom.

Source: Earlier Version of this Page


It has been over a decade since that earlier page was used, so much of the technology has changed. I propose that we update the old introduction and use it instead.

Proposed: 

    Interactive Whiteboard technology uses a dry-erase whiteboard writing surface to capture writing electronically and communicate with a computer.  This technology converts a whiteboard from a mere classroom tool to an active human input/output interface.  There are several different Form Factors, or configurations of physical specifications and components, of IWB's that can convert a common whiteboard into an IWB.  Some of these Form Factors use specific technologies.

After that, I propose something like the following, but I need to learn a bit more about the history of this idea before I state this as absolute fact. Proposed (not to be added until after fact check): 

    The first IWB's were configured with a computer that were connected to both a video projector and some form of sensor plus a whiteboard. The camera or sensor receives human input from the whiteboard so that the person is able to present material while maintaining contact with the audience rather than being confined to the computer for input.  This allows for more dynamic and engaging presentations of lessons and presentations.

Below are the next paragraphs of the earlier version. While the first two proposed paragraphs tell us what an IWB is made out of, the following tell us some of the things it can do, so it is a great addition. I'll wait to update these until I hear whether these proposals are accepted. 

    Interactive whiteboards are used in one of two ways:

    To capture notes written on the whiteboard surface using dry-erase ink or
    To control (click and drag) and/or mark-up (annotate) a computer-generated image projected on the whiteboard surface from a digital projector.
    Interactive whiteboards are largely taking over from blackboards and whiteboards. They work as a large computer screen by projecting the computer image onto the board via an external projector and the computer can actually be controlled via the board, there are sensors on the board and when they are activated in different places it points the cursor to that point. There are three different types of board with different ways of controlling the computer via the board, electromagnetic, touch-sensitive and infrared.

Form Factors and Overall Restructuring:

First, a bit of housekeeping. These two paragraphs, below, are in the introduction of the current page. I propose that these two paragraphs be moved to a new section titled History. They are so specific that they add little understanding to the concept of an IWB. 

   The first interactive whiteboards were designed and manufactured for use in the office. They were developed by PARC around 1990. This board was used in small group meetings and round-tables.

    The interactive whiteboard industry was expected to reach sales of US$1 billion worldwide by 2008; one of every seven classrooms in the world was expected to feature an interactive whiteboard by 2011 according to market research by Futuresource Consulting.[1] In 2004, 26% of British primary classrooms had interactive whiteboards.[2] The Becta Harnessing Technology Schools Survey 2007 indicated that 98% of secondary and 100% of primary schools had IWBs.[3] By 2008, the average numbers of interactive whiteboards rose in both primary schools (18 compared with just over six in 2005, and eight in the 2007 survey) and secondary schools (38, compared with 18 in 2005 and 22 in 2007).[4]

Second, we need to consider Form Factors again. In an earlier suggestion, I discussed how the definition is misused. I believe that the new proposed intro resolves the confusion over form factors. After spending some time understanding the Form Factor definition, it appears that the concept of Form Factors is a major organizing principle for the idea of IWB's.

If one goes down to the § Front and Rear Projection, one sees that this based on Form Factor as an organizing principle. In the 2006 version of this page, this section was directly after a How It Works section. The current page has inserted multiple sections in between that don't really follow.

Contents (Of Earlier Version of This Page)

  • 1 How it works
  • 1.1 Front and Rear projection
  • 2 Classroom Uses
  • 2.1 Literature Reviews
  • 3 Research
  • 4 Office Uses
  • 5 Accessories
  • 6 See also


The How It Works section discussed some of what is covered under the current Technology section, then it flowed into a discussion of the operation process based on Form Factor. In this organization, the concepts of technology make a parallel structure to answer the questions of what it is (or is made out of) and what does it do. I propose to restructure the article as below to go back to this more sensible organization. (Current version of the contents also provided for comparison.) By getting the structure correct again, I believe the rest of the page will become more comprehensible, and that will make updating some of the other details in this article much easier.

One other minor structural change I'm proposing is to move the Technology section below the Form Factor Discussion. This is a reference text. We typically read from the intro of a reference straight through until we begin finding information that we aren't that interested in or don't need, then we begin to skip around. The reader does not need to know the details about each technology type. That information will be wanted only if they need it to further understand how the technology helps a specific Form Function to operate. It makes more sense to put this under the different form factors so that they only need to be read if further clarification is needed.

While researching IWB's, I have come across a few references that indicate an IWB configured with a projector, a reflective display, is easier on the eyes than a large screen, like a large plasma TV converted into an IWB which is an emissive display. I'll fact check this once I get an approval to begin making the changes on this page. (That's when I would go to the sandbox, right?)

There are a lot of other editing issues in the current text that makes some of the proposed changes tentative. There are many paragraphs, for example, with sentences that are just unrelated to the topic of the paragraph. Trying to edit the individual paragraphs while reorganizing the structure of the article is a bit too complex.


Contents (Of Current Page)

  • 1 General operation and use
  • 2 Common types of operation
  • 2.1 Operation of an infrared scan (IR touch) whiteboard
  • 2.2 Operation of a resistive touch-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.3 Operation of an electromagnetic pen-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.4 Operation of a portable ultrasonic, IR pen-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.5 Operation of a Wiimote / IR-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.6 Operation of a virtual whiteboard via an interactive projector
  • 3 Classroom uses
  • 4 Integration with a learner response system
  • 5 Research into impact of interactive whiteboards on education standards
  • 5.1 London Challenge Study
  • 5.2 The DfES Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion project
  • 5.2.1 Key findings
  • 5.3 Additional research
  • 6 Benefits
  • 7 Criticisms
  • 8 Academic literature reviews and research
  • 9 Technologies
  • 9.1 Potential issues
  • 10 Front and rear projection
  • 11 Short-throw projection systems and interactive whiteboards
  • 12 Calibration
  • 13 Associated equipment
  • 14 References

Contents (Proposed)

  • 1 General operation and use
  • 1.1 History
  • 2 Common types of operation [How It Works Based on Form Factor]
  • 2.1 Front and rear projection (was §10)
  • 2.1.1 Short-throw projection systems and interactive whiteboards (was §11)
  • 2.1.2 Eye Health Concerns (to be added)
  • 2.2 Operation by Common Form Factors
  • 2.2.1 Operation of an infrared scan (IR touch) whiteboard
  • 2.2.2 Operation of a resistive touch-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.2.3 Operation of an electromagnetic pen-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.2.4 Operation of a portable ultrasonic, IR pen-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.2.5 Operation of a Wiimote / IR-based interactive whiteboard
  • 2.2.6 Operation of a virtual whiteboard via an interactive projector
  • 2.3 Calibration
  • 2.4 Associated equipment
  • 2.5 Technologies
  • 2.5.1 Potential issues
  • 3 IWB's in Business (Proposed New Section)
  • 4 IWB's in Education
  • Classroom uses (This was §3. This may become part of the introductory paragraphs for this article or may be blended into the new §4.1 below.)
  • 4.1 Integration with a learner response system
  • 4.2 Research into impact of interactive whiteboards on education standards
  • 4.2.1 London Challenge Study
  • 4.2.2 The DfES Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion project
  • 4.2.3 Key findings
  • 4.4 Additional research
  • 5 Critiques of IWB Technology (
  • 5.1 Benefits
  • 5.2 Criticisms
  • 6 Academic literature reviews and research
  • 7 References
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interactive_whiteboard&oldid=1202969680"