Talk:Interactive whiteboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

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 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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)

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)


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)

"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)

see for company details -- 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:{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 (talkcontribs)
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)

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. (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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 (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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