My knowledge of this business is minimal, but I thought that one
advantage of the current approach, if you can use a hardware speech
synthesizer, is that you can get at least some of the boot-up
messages--not as early as sighted folks get them, but well before
software speech can kick in. If this is true, wouldn't the proposed
change be a very builty-in reduction in non-visual access?
Al
On 10/08/2014 03:43 PM, Kyle wrote:
It does appear to me that something like this will force more of Speakup
into userspace. However, unlike others, I'm not entirely opposed to the
idea of Speakup leaving the kernel, and I think it can only be a good
thing, especially on newer machines, where dedicated serial ports are
all but obsolete, and software in userspace can take better advantage of
things like Pulseaudio and libusb, meaning more extensive software and
hardware speech support. For example, there would no longer be a need
for kernel modules to control speech synthesizers, and there would no
longer be a need to have external userspace connectors such as Espeakup,
as the entire Speakup screen reader could be moved into userspace, and
anything that interfaces with a speech synthesizer could be either
internal or could be a library that interfaces with a speech API like
speech-dispatcher or others. Even better, if Speakup is moved entirely
into userspace, it could give rise to far better access to consoles on
*BSD and other Unix operating systems, as the code could be far more
portable between operating systems when it doesn't have to be tied into
a specific kernel. Just my $0.02 BSD. That's Bahamian dollars lol.
~Kyle
http://kyle.tk/
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
