just to ad to this thread, could some of what's ben suggested not be handled by the user writing a shell script or as chuck suggested just not worrying about it? I find speakup works fine as it is. the numlock feature is certainly a good idea. as for the frames/windows, right at the moment I don't know why I'd want some parts of the screen not spoken. that's just my thoughts anyhow. On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Charles Hallenbeck wrote: > On 11 Jan 2002, Kirk Reiser wrote: > > > On another note, mentioning that something should be there because it > > is part of windows/dos screen review packages is a non-starter with > > me. That means we should do something because it is available in that > > other o.s. I base what needs to be done on what features seem > > reasonable to provide better access to linux. I am not at all > > interested in keeping up with those other packages. So if you folks > > want to make a comparison based on features, you might as well just > > piss off. > > Kirk, > > I support your position completely! Speakup is at the point where > it is vulnerable to the bells and whistles syndrome, where folks > want to throw in the kitchen sink. Stick to the straight and > narrow and make sure each feature under consideration really > belongs in a screen reader. Examples: the cut and paste feature > really did belong; the reinitialization feature really does not. > > Chuck > > > *<<<=-=>>>*<<<=-=>>>*<<<=-=>>>*<<<=-=>>>* > Visit me at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh > The Moon is Waning Crescent (4% of Full) > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -- Shaun Oliver Marriage is a three ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering. -- Roger Price Email: shauno at goanna.net.au Icq: 76958435
