Thanks for pointing out the folly of being so involved witht he GUI to the exclusion of text mode. In fact, we are all better off if we have text alternatives and can use the products of the text apps to interface with GUI apps used by others. In short, we have to relate to the rest of the world, but if we can do that in an accessible way, then we should go for it with text. On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Gene Collins wrote: > Hi all. There seems to be a lot of blind folks who want to focus on a g > u i interface, ie. x windows, to the exclussion of all else. About the > only thing that isn't available from the text console at this point is a > web browser that will support java script. I happen to know personally, > though I'm not at liberty to say who is working on it, that such a thing > is in the works. The Gnopernicus folks have really done a number on the > blind community, touting gnopernicus as being useable when it's not. > > As for the hardware interface idea, it may be that all devices in the > future will move to a usb interface, but I doubt it. Speech Dispatcher > is an attempt to allow developers of speech applications to access all > synthesizers from a generic applications programming interface. > > It may be that Kirk decides to support Braille displays at some point, > but on the other hand, why reinvent the wheel. Brailletty co exists > with speakup quite nicely. The other thing I would point out about the > unified hardware interface idea is that not all hardware is created > equal. > > Many of the other ideas you have about Speakup have been incorporated in > to the cvs version of Speakup, and some of the rest are on the to do > list. But remember, that there seems to be a shortage of people willing > and able to help with Speakup development. It takes some pretty skilled > c programmers to write code that can live inside the Linux kernel. If > you speak c and are comfortable writing code that will fit into the > kernel source, Kirk could use the help. > > This is in no way ment to be a brush off of your ideas, just that time > and personnel don't always allow for everything to happen as quickly as > folks would like. > > Finally, because speakup is a part of the kernel, which is the actual > heart of the operating system, there are some things that other screen > readers can do that Speakup can't. Like waiting a long time for a > synthesizer to respond, thus holding up every process running on the > system. Remember that when the kernel is "waiting", it has the > processor, and nothing else can happen. > > The long and short of it is, that some of your ideas are practical, and > others may not be. There is no substitute for learning about the system > you are using. Many people are prone to make suggestions, with out > understanding what is involved in accomplishing what they suggest. I > used to do the same thing (grin), so if you find yourself in that > position, don't feel bad. We all have to learn. Keep the suggestions > coming, but if some of them don't get implemented, realize that it may > be that they just aren't practical, ie. you didn't have a full grasp of > what was involved when you made the suggestion. > > Gene > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -- -- Charlie Crawford
