You didn't read my post very well I never said I had a problem with emacs because of its key bindings I said I shouldn't have to learn emacs just to access Linux. The screen reader should be smart enough to be used with out having to know one specific application if I only want to know 3 applications and my software that I use as speech then that should be something I can do. As for it being obvious where the work should be done. You seem to be a bit close minded on how linux systems are being set up accross the world. I never said I choose not to install xwin because of resources being limmited on those two servers I spoke of. In fact gboth have 8 gig drives. I refuse to install Xwin because it is useless to the aplications I am running and will not be used. Why shoudl a blind user be forced to install emacs, Gnome, or Xwin just to get access to the applications they need? You state that we have total access to the shell environment with emacspeak. That is not true I can not use two of the applications with emacspeak because it is extreemly stupid when it comes to using programs with shell or term and that is the only ay I have found to run the applications. It has no strength when you leave the emacs environment and while many things can be done in emacs not everything can. While SvlPro could be a good solution it is not working as of yet. As for Speak-up I have not been able to use it yet because none of my servers including this laptop have been upgraded to Kernal 2.2. I have only heard of a new commercial access plat form but maybe that will be out soon and will make this argument mute. The point of this whole descussion was not to say emacspeak is bad because it is not. The point was to say we need all access possibilities not just Xwin not just Emacs. We need methods of installing and methods of using the shell with out having to learn an entire system like emacs. Ken /whistler On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Jason White wrote: > Needless to say, I have no sympathy for some of the arguments that have > been presented here. Hardware (including memory) prices are decreasing. > Most software for Linux these days is being written for (1) the command > line, or (2) the X Window System. Console-based full-screen applications > are constituting a diminishing proportion of total software development > effort, as a review of http://freshmeat.net/ will show. In terms of screen > reading functionality, the Emacs terminal emulator is more advanced than > any of the primitive screen readers for the Linux console which have so > far been developed, largely due to the significant design and development > effort that has been introduced into Emacspeak and the fragmentation of > the Linux screen reader work into at least four separate programmes: > SVPro, SpeakUp, SCReader and UltraSonix, with only the latter being > reasonably well advanced in terms of configurability and features. The > situation is as follows: > > 1. Today it is possible to access the shell and text-based applications by > any of the following means: (a) a separate computer acting as a terminal; > (b) the Emacspeak terminal emulator; (c) under development, UltraSonix > with a terminal emulator; (d) under development: the Gnome terminal > emulator; (e) BrlTTY with a braille display (and there is interest in > adding speech output to this software as well). > > By contrast, if one wishes to access an X application, the choices are (1) > the Gnome speech server, which is still under development, and (2) > UltraSonix, which requires significant work in order to be ready for > every-day use. It is clear where the access barriers are and where the > priorities should lie, namely with (1) the development of open-source user > software and user interfaces in the manner described in my previous > message, and (2) access to the X environment and its applications. This > becomes all the more important once it is realised that most interactive > software these days is being written for the X Window System. > > The objections which have been raised against this approach are: (1) > memory and disk space limitations, which are ultimately a legacy problem > that won't affect most Linux users, especially in the future as X becomes > (indeed it has already become) a standard basis for the user interface; > and (2) dissatisfaction with Emacspeak for spurious reasons such as the > key bindings, which of course can be readily remapped as needed. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe: mail blinux-develop-request@xxxxxxxxxx with > "unsubscribe" as the Subject. >