I believe normal work routines is 10 hours per day. IDHMBWM right now, but I think it is in either core rules or Covenants, along the "non-standard lab routine". I remember it because we had two magi read the same book duting a season (one was nocturnal) and a third person couldn't get enough hours to read as well.
Get a servant (or a herd of them if you want to avoid warping) - use InMe to 'see' through their eyes - by reading their thoughts of what they actually see.
Not sure if the servant would need to be able to read though.
Agreed.
Quite possible that standard Vision targeting spells wont work for someone blind, but to say it wont work at all... Nah that imposes another limit on what can be done on a shaky basis.
And also, magical vision doesnt necessarily have anything at all to do with normal eyesight anyway.
Target "Vision" in this case may be how its perceived rather than actually sensed.
Blindness is still a severe drawback so why make it exceptionally crippling?
Otherwise you could also argue that its impossible for a blind magi to read the mind of someone if that person in any way is thinking in pictures at the moment.
You are correct, time in lab is ten hours a day. On the other hand, that's six days a week, so that's only two hours added to our tally per week.....
Yep, I agree.
But I don't think that should be default case.
Exactly.
Also it would mean that you couldn't give senses to autonomous magical items.
I believe both situations are addressed in the RAW.
Under the section on Range: sight pg 112 it says that InIm is used to give independent magic items access to this range. (It also states there that a blind magus can only effect himself with Range:sight)
Under the section on Target: (senses) pg 113 it states specifically and repeatedly that the information provided by such spells comes “through” the targeted sense. I don’t think it’s shaky ground at all to infer that you can’t target a nonexistent sense. So I would say that a blind magus can’t use target: vision spells.
So, specifically what effect can be used to give a magic item the ability to see?
Well the Dico Calculus from Magi of Hermes has this effect.
The text says it was created for a blind magus and also has this linked effect in it allowing it to transmit the images into the users mind.
Now it seems to me, that means that by itself an InIm effect cannot convey visual information to a blind user. Otherwise why the second linked effect.
For that matter if a Maga could simply cast an InIm effect to be able to see why even go to the trouble of making a magic item in the first place. Never mind even using this item means a hermetic would have to suppress their magic resistance. After all without added levels of effect for uses per day and maintaining concentration it’s only a level 3 spell. Sure a caster could be deficient enough to have trouble casting it. But I would imagine a blind magus soon correcting their deficiencies if such a simple effect where actually useful to them.
So you can easily infer from the RAW that yes InIm can allow an inanimate object to see, but no it can’t by itself allow a blind man to see. Does that make sense, not at all! However, between the existence of such an item in RAW, and the wording of the relevant text in the main book, that’s how I’m interpreting it.
In this case, yes, the second effect is needed because all that the first effect does is allow the item to see. However, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a similar effect couldn't be cast that allowed the caster to see, instead of the item. The item is "naturally" blind and cannot see, yet an InIm effect can allow it to see. This is exactly the same situation that the blind caster is in.
Remember that the spell designs listed in the RAW are not meant to be either the optimum or only way of doing things. They are just the spells that some particular magus invented, and there are any number of reasons why he designed this effect in this way and not some other way, starting with, "he liked this way better". Or maybe the magus wanted to be able to give the item to somebody else, sometimes. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the same problem (being blind) couldn't be solved another (and better) way.
As you note, this design is hardly optimum, as the magus needs to lower his magic resistance for it to work.
The item can see but only by touch. not by vision.
But if he´s blind he cant see those images either. By your own previous statement.
Because the item does TWO things. Data IN, Data OUT, cant do that with a single effect.
Warping?
Yeah, because by default, its "blind" as well.
How can the item use the touch sense? It doesn't have that "naturally" either.
Well let’s say it’s a different situation. Lets say you have a sighted Magus who wishes to invest Prying Eyes into a magic item. It’s essentially the same effect as Read the words only it has the Target: Room. Does that mean that item also has to have a CrIm effect linked into it so that your sighted magus could gain the benefit of Prying Eyes. Or can InIm effects be invested to inform the user directly instead of the item.
No, the effect doesn't need to be designed like this. It could be however.
I would think that any Intellego effect could be designed such that the user of the item receives the sense effect directly, instead of the item. Something like a mask that lets the user see some distant location, should be entirely possible. Why not?
Well if a device can be designed that way why does the Dico Calculus have the added Creo Mentem effect. Why would you spend extra lab time and Vis to ad an effect to an item that is entirely superfluous.
The only answer that I can come up with is a blind magus can’t benefit from a standard Itellego Imagenem effect at least when it simulates some manner of sight. Saying that not all examples shown in the RAW are optimum is one thing but adding an unneeded major effect to an item is another. Particularly since we're talking about a book that seems to be an honest attempt at producing some good examples of characters, spells, and magic items.
I've no idea. There's absolutely nothing wrong with his device. It just doesn't mean that it is the only solution to this problem of being blind.
Why would you drive a Ferrari when you can drive a Ford?
Hell, I'll take a 1960's Ford Mustang over any year Ferrari any day! I'd take the Mustang over a Porsche, Lamborghinni, or any of those fancy-dancy euro-cars. Ford is the American classic 
Ok, now it IS proven... You´re REALLY crazy! :mrgreen:
You just don't know anything about classic muscle cars. Ever drive a Shelby GT Cobra? It will change your life
It did! (I pissed blood from that rock-hard suspension!) 