Steve:
I think trimming down the pitch ranges to 1-10 would be a good idea.
I for one wouldn't want to tap an up or down arrow key 100 times to get the
right pitch configuration. On the other hand I'm just happy to be able to
access Linux in the first place,
with no control of my pitch. I really am in no position to present an
opinion yet! <grin>
Its nice to see new developments proposed and tested.
Now if you could develop a screen reader for the X gue as solid as Jaws, now
that would be something. HAHAHAHAH!
Keep up the good work.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Holmes <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 1:13 PM
Subject: Speakup Configurator
> I think what I'm gonna do is try and accomodate Speakout and Doubletalk
> first. This will enable me to get the program to save valid parameter
> features and ranges for each synthesiser so that the proper features and
> ranges can be made available automatically depending on which synthesiser
> is currently being used. Once this is accomplished, I should be able to
> add other synthesisers in the future with much less fuss. Right now, I
> hard coded things thinking of one box and well I got painted into a corner
> real fast! Gee, thought my programming skills could have helped me avoid
> that trap:).
>
> One general question I would like to ask of all synthesiser users though,
> What about parameters that allow for a hundred or more choices? I'm
> thinking of a range of 00 to 99 or something like that. With my current
> design, one could end up having to press up or down arrow a hundred times
> to make the complete loop. Would it be necessary to stop at every point or
> would it be acceptable to say, skip every ten values to scale our keyboard
> approach to having ten choices instead of a hundred.
>
> Whad do you all think?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
