Re: another idea for speech.

Re: another idea for speech.

[HRTC]

Hi, listers!
An wonderful altercation!
But I hope it will come to an end by Gym's mail.
One thing I am sure of is we should have access to all kind of OS and
with so much limited resources, we should allocate them very wisely.
I don't think that we have satisfactory solution for Win95 yet, but
Windows NT has already come very near.
So, I believe that what we need is an urgent beginning of developing a
screen reader for NT, not another screen reader for X-Windows.
It is very important for the blind to have a variety of choices for an
OS, but far more important to have  access to each OS.
 I hope that Synthavoice will open a new era by developing a new WinBridge
 for NT.

 Chungho Kim

Re: another idea for speech.

[Travis Siegel]

> One thing I am sure of is we should have access to all kind of OS and
> with so much limited resources, we should allocate them very wisely.
> I don't think that we have satisfactory solution for Win95 yet, but
> Windows NT has already come very near.
> So, I believe that what we need is an urgent beginning of developing a
> screen reader for NT, not another screen reader for X-Windows.

I don't give a fiddle about x-windows.  I just want a screen reader I can
use with linux from the console.  I don't run x, neither will I do so.
But from the main console, there is still no options for me.  I *must* use
a terminal to get access to my system.  That's what I'd like to fix.  Now,
anyone have any ideas?


Http://softcon.com offers web pages for a reasonable rate, and will even
create pages for you at *very* fair rates.  Check us out today if you're
looking for a home for your web pages.

Re: another idea for speech.

[Brian L. Sellden]

Hi all,
Travis said:
> I don't give a fiddle about x-windows.  I just want a screen reader I can
> use with linux from the console.  I don't run x, neither will I do so.
> But from the main console, there is still no options for me.  I *must* use
> a terminal to get access to my system.  That's what I'd like to fix.  Now,
> anyone have any ideas?

I am getting weary of posts like this.  Linux access 
comes in many different forms.  A console screen reader is only 
one of them.  Travis, whether or not you 'give a fiddle'
about X Windows access is of concern to noone.
On this list, discussions will continue on several different topics.
Getting access to consoles, X Windows, ttys, are all legitimate 
topics.
  Let's keep as many threads of discussion going as possible.

Regards,
Brian.

-- 
---------------
Brian L. Sellden - brian@henge.com, brians@usa.net
User of Emacspeak 5.0,  making Unix talk.
http://www.henge.com/~brian

Re: another idea for speech.

[Travis Siegel]

> I am getting weary of posts like this.  Linux access 
> comes in many different forms.  A console screen reader is only 
> one of them.  Travis, whether or not you 'give a fiddle'
> about X Windows access is of concern to noone.
> On this list, discussions will continue on several different topics.
> Getting access to consoles, X Windows, ttys, are all legitimate 
> topics.

I have no problem with folks using x, neither do I think that console
access only is the answer.  Don't start jumping on me for asking a
legitimate question.  As of yet, there is nothing (I repeat) nothing for
just plain shell/console users of linux to give us speech access.  That is
what I wanted, and that is what my question was.  Now if you think that's
boring, that's fine, but I (and several others I know) would welcome such
a thing.  Emacspeak is for x-windows, what is there for normal shell
users? The answer is nothing.  Now by your own words, let's keep as many
discussions going as possible.  Well, this is one of those discussions.
Now, as I asked before, does anyone have any ideas on how this could be
done?


Http://softcon.com offers web pages for a reasonable rate, and will even
create pages for you at *very* fair rates.  Check us out today if you're
looking for a home for your web pages.

Re: another idea for speech.

[Joel Zimba]

uhh, who says emacspeak is for X windows?

...


last I checked, it wasn't doing anything in x

Joel

Re: another idea for speech.

[William Loughborough]

Travis please fix the URL for softcon.com.  It produces an error
message.

Love.

Re: another idea for speech.

[Travis Siegel]

> Travis please fix the URL for softcon.com.  It produces an error
> message.

I just tested it both from here, and 2 other accounts I have elsewhere on
the net.  All accesses worked just fine.  Perhaps you inserted a www? it's
softcon.com, not www.softcon.com.

Http://softcon.com offers web pages for a reasonable rate, and will even
create pages for you at *very* fair rates.  Check us out today if you're
looking for a home for your web pages.

Re: another idea for speech.

[Jim Rebman]

> legitimate question.  As of yet, there is nothing (I repeat) nothing for
> just plain shell/console users of linux to give us speech access.  That is
> what I wanted, and that is what my question was.  Now if you think that's
> boring, that's fine, but I (and several others I know) would welcome such
> a thing.  Emacspeak is for x-windows, what is there for normal shell
> users? The answer is nothing.  Now by your own words, let's keep as many
> discussions going as possible.  Well, this is one of those discussions.
> Now, as I asked before, does anyone have any ideas on how this could be
> done?


Last time for the PCWM...

NO, NO, NO!  Emacspeak is not for X-Windows -- it is for just what you 
describe; native speech access for the linux/unix console and shell 
users.  It is possible to run it in an xterm window though.  I have no 
idea of how to do this because I am not running X yet, but Raman has used 
it in this manner.  So, now you can stop ignoring Emacspeak and start 
investigating how you can put it to work for you.  Here are a couple of 
hints:

You can find Emacspeak at 
www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/emacspeak/emacspeak.html

If you do not have a dectalk express, or other serial dectalk, or an 
Alpha running the software dectalk, then you will have to write your own 
driver for your synthesizer.

The driver will have to be written in tclx (extended tcl), not in "Emacs" 
or Emacs-lisp, or assembler, or pascal, or c, or ...

Yes, there will be some work involved, and as Raman has pointed out, it 
is not too difficult, and as he has also pointed out, in this world of 
free software, there is a give and take process involved -- you take the 
Emacspeak, you write a driver for it, and you give the driver back to the 
community at large.  So now, please stop fretting about the absence of 
native speech for linux/unix -- it does exist, but it might require some 
effort to make it work.  I am running it on a pentium-166 tower machine 
with no terminal attached, and on a pentium-133 laptop.  Trust me, it 
does actually provide speech for linux.

-- JR

Re: another idea for speech.

[Travis Siegel]

> NO, NO, NO!  Emacspeak is not for X-Windows -- it is for just what you 
> describe; native speech access for the linux/unix console and shell 
> users.  It is possible to run it in an xterm window though.  I have no 

Thank you, this is what I wanted to know.  Somewhere (I don't know where)
I got the impression emacspeak was for x-windows.

> If you do not have a dectalk express, or other serial dectalk, or an 
> Alpha running the software dectalk, then you will have to write your own 
> driver for your synthesizer.

That's assuming of course I can get enough documentation out of Artic to
do so.  I've not had much luck in this endevour in the past.  I will
certainly give it a try though.

> The driver will have to be written in tclx (extended tcl), not in "Emacs" 

Well, now, that's not a language I'm familiar with, so it will take some
doing to do the job, but if I can get the info I require from Artic
Technologies, I'll certainly do what I can to make this work.

> effort to make it work.  I am running it on a pentium-166 tower machine 
> with no terminal attached, and on a pentium-133 laptop.  Trust me, it 
> does actually provide speech for linux.

There, now was that so difficult folks? These are all good points, and
just what I expected the first time.  Not a message telling me to keep as
many threads open as possible.  I'll do what I can to make things work
here, and as long as the rest of us do the same, we should have across the
board access in no time.

 > 
> ---
> Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list@redhat.com
> Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
> Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
> To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request@redhat.com
> with subject line: unsubscribe
> 

Http://softcon.com offers web pages for a reasonable rate, and will even
http://softcon.com for low-cost web space.

Re: another idea for speech.

[Brian L. Sellden]

Hi folks,
> > I am getting weary of posts like this.  Linux access 
> > comes in many different forms.  A console screen reader is only 
> > one of them.  Travis, whether or not you 'give a fiddle'
> > about X Windows access is of concern to noone.
> > On this list, discussions will continue on several different topics.
> > Getting access to consoles, X Windows, ttys, are all legitimate 
> > topics.

> I have no problem with folks using x, neither do I think that console
> access only is the answer.  Don't start jumping on me for asking a
> legitimate question.  

Ok, let's get the facts straight.  You answered a post about
X Windows access by stating that you didn't care about X Windows
access, that you only care about access to the console, and
what does the world have for *me*.
  I don't think that posts that state "Who cares what
*you* want, what about *me*!" are particularly productive.
The original poster was not talking about access to the console!

> As of yet, there is nothing (I repeat) nothing for
> just plain shell/console users of linux to give us speech access.  That is
> what I wanted, and that is what my question was.  Now if you think that's
> boring, that's fine, but I (and several others I know) would welcome such
> a thing.  

Nobody thinks access to the console is boring.  Replying 
to a post about GUI access with your question about console 
access *is* boring.

> Emacspeak is for x-windows, what is there for normal shell
> users? The answer is nothing.  Now by your own words, let's keep as many
> discussions going as possible.  Well, this is one of those discussions.
> Now, as I asked before, does anyone have any ideas on how this could be
> done?

Travis, here's a little PCWM for you.  Emacspeak is *not* an
X Windows screen-reader.  The author, Dr. T. V. Raman, is on this
list, and has explained this in great detail several times on
this list.  *PLEASE* do some research!
  In a nut-shell, emacspeak runs wherever emacs runs - from
the console *or* in an X Windows session.  Most people
on this list who don't use emacspeak don't do so because
Dr. Raman hasn't written a driver for their particular 
synthesizer.  Dr. Raman has stated that he has no need to write
drivers for other cards, and that doing so is not difficult.
  So, Travis, the easy answer is for you to learn TCLX, a rather
small interpreted language, and write yourself a driver.  Then,
you can give it to others with the same synth.  Wouldn't that
be great?

Regards,
Brian.

-- 
---------------
Brian L. Sellden - brian@henge.com, brians@usa.net
User of Emacspeak 5.0,  making Unix talk.
http://www.henge.com/~brian

Re: another idea for speech

[Travis Siegel]

>I have suggested to the folks at Synthavoice that they might try their
>hand at a product for Linux and x free 86. what do you all think of the
>idea?

A very nice idea indeed.  Trouble is, (at least us artic users) Artic
cards require a sonixtts.com driver before speech programs other than
artic's own artic or business vision will work on them.  Unless artic
gets their hands out from where they're sitting on them, we won't have
linux access directly.  At the moment, using a pc as a terminal provides
the greatest flexibility for blind users.  (personal opinion)


-- 
http://softcon.com/~tsiegel/

Re: another idea for speech

[michael malver]

I am glad they are working on a x screen reader, but I'd also like to see
something that would work under linux, without x.  I want to be able to run
bash, or tcsh without running a whole  nother termina.  I like nn, elm, and
would probably switch to unix if those programs would talk on my machine.
For now, I must use a local provider.
At 07:28 PM 12/6/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Craig writes:
>> 
>> I have suggested to the folks at Synthavoice that they might try their
>> hand at a product for Linux and x free 86. what do you all think of the
>> idea?
>
>I would rather see Synthavoice put their efforts into a top-quality NT 
>screen reader.  There is a group of us who is working on one for X, and 
>when it is done (please don't ask when), it will be freely available.
>
>I would hate to see a commercial company devote any resources to a screen 
>reader for X, when instead they could be concentrating on NT -- the end 
>result is that there will be two top-quality screen readers, one for each 
>environment, and that will allow the maximum number of blind people to be 
>employed in the shortest amount of time, and that is really what should 
>be driving any development efforts.
>
>-- Jim Rebman <jrebman@netcom.com>
>
>---
>Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list@redhat.com
>Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
>Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
>To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request@redhat.com
>with subject line: unsubscribe
>
>

Re: another idea for speech

[Lar Kaufman]

I can't agree with the idea that Synthavoice should be working on an
NT screen reader.  IBM has already shown in OS/2 Warp 4 that it is
quite feasible and apropos for voice support to be an OS-supplied 
interface, and I'd rather see pressure for Microsoft to adopt IBM's 
solution to have standard hooks.   

An X solution is also laudable, because it cannot be justifiable to
lock a segment of users into a proprietary solution because of a disability.
(Let Microsoft support X?  Why not?)

-lar

  Lar Kaufman    lark@world.std.com     lark@conserve.org    lark@walden.com
   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +
  _Running Linux_ 2nd. Ed. Aug. 1996, Matt Welsh and Lar Kaufman, Authors
                                      O'Reilly & Associates, Publishers

Re: another idea for speech

[Jim Rebman]

I will respond primarily to the comments made by Lar, but I will also 
answer a couple of others that have come up since his original post, and 
then, I hope this thread will end.

Lar writes:
> I can't agree with the idea that Synthavoice should be working on an
> NT screen reader.  IBM has already shown in OS/2 Warp 4 that it is
> quite feasible and apropos for voice support to be an OS-supplied 
> interface, and I'd rather see pressure for Microsoft to adopt IBM's 
> solution to have standard hooks.   

If, when you talk about an OS-resident voice capability, you are talking
about the voice I/O capabilities that are built into Merlin, then I have
to assume that you have never tried to use this kind of speech to
accomplish any kind of useful or productive work -- this kind of highly
inflected, natural-sounding speech is totally inappropriate for a blind
user.  Because of its highly-inflected nature it is nearly impossible to
understand at rates that are required for productive work; also, the
amount of listening fatigue that results from prolonged exposure to this
kind of speech would drive a normal person mad in short order.  Microsoft
and Sun, to name but two, are also developing these so-called speech APIs. 
Just fine for the bored executive who wants his e-mail read to him, or
for the computer hobbyist who likes "neat, cool, and shiny" things.  Of 
course, the kind of controls that one assumes to be in a normal screen 
reader are nowhere to be found in these speech APIs, either -- none but 
the simplest and most rudimentary.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the kind of hooks that are
built into OS/2 that make it possible for Screen Reader/II to function,
then you have missed the obvious point that Screen Reader/II *IS* a
screen reader, and blind people who want to use computers need to use
screen reader software to realize the maximum flexibility, control, and
speed that it can offer over a simple, so-called "speech API".

Just for your information, Microsoft has developed a standard set of 
"hooks" (actually, it is a much more powerful accessibility API), 
unfortunately, it was not mature enough to include in NT 4.0, however, it 
will be in the next release.  You can check out the API for yourself, and 
even download the SDK -- go to www.microsoft.com/windows/enable/  There 
ye shall find what you seek.

The bottom line is that whatever platform you decide to use, wether it be 
OS/2, NT, or X386, the only effective way for a blind person to work with 
it will be through the use of a screen reader, at least at this point in 
time.

Then you continued:
> (Let Microsoft support X?  Why not?)

Sure!  Why not!  Why don't we just hand over Linux, VMS, OS/2, and all 
the screen reader and other accessibility aid developers to them as 
well...  You must be joking.  I really can't see giving Microsoft any 
more influence then they already have (which is too much to begin with).  
No, No, No, a thousand (and twenty-four) times NO!

Now, on to the other folks:

To Mike Malver: Emacspeak will do what you want -- it won't work very 
well with ELM as it is "right-out-of-the-box", but with some tweaking it 
should do just fine.  Switching between virtual terminals, each one 
running whichever shell you want, is a simple matter of hitting the 
alt-f1 through alt-f6 keys -- in the standard configuration of the 
version of linux that I am running, the default is for 6 virtual 
terminals f1 - f6.  You can change this up to 250+ virtual terminals if 
you wish, but changing from one to the other is very simple.

And finally to Kenneth...

*WE* know what we are talking about -- SynthaVoice makes screen reader 
software, as well as screen enlargement software.  They were the first 
company to develop a screen reader for Microsoft Windows (Slimware Window 
Bridge), and their current version is one of the finest, most stable, and 
powerful Windows/Windows '95 screen readers.  They do not make speech 
synthesizers, and yes, I do know the difference between a screen reader 
and a speech synthesizer -- I've been doing this for a while.

------

SynthaVoice *should* concentrate on an NT screen reader -- it is 
something that is desperately needed right now.  They don't need to spend 
any time, money, or effort  on a screen reader for X, and next time I 
talk to Laslowe, I'm fairly certain I can convince him of this.  Why 
should he make a huge investment in time and money, and compromise his 
already outstanding products, when the group I am affiliated with is 
going to deliver an X screen reader and give it away for free?  It is a 
business decision, and a reasonably easy one, at that.

-- JR

Re: another idea for speech

[Jason John Griffin White]

Some speech synthesizers that are supplied as expansion boards for pc's, 
require specially written software drivers in order to run effectively. 
It therefore seems important to encourage relevant manufacturers to 
write such drivers for Linux and perhaps other versions of Unix that can 
be run on personal computers.

If these drivers all conformed to a common interface standard, then a 
device-independent screen reader could easily be implemented. There is 
also a need for braille display manufacturers to make product details 
available to those who are developing access software for Linux.

Re: another idea for speech

[Craig Martin]

well,
this is a very interesting train of thought.  It would be nice if we could
find a way to use a doubletalk board in a linux invironment,  But what you
might be able to do is tell emacs speaks the way to control a double talk
external or a lite talk and then use the standard console keys as the
input.  This might take some of the pressure off of those who have less
resources.  I have two double talk internal boards here at home, and I
wonder if they could run with emacs speaks?  I'm annew user of Linux, so
this is a new idea to me.
What do you all think?


craig martin
numbers@primenet.com
packet:
wa0wpj@wa0wpj.ampr.org

Re: another idea for speech

[Ken Perry]

The writer of Emacs says writing a driver for other boards is  simple let
me know if you get one for Double talk written.

Ken /whistler

On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Craig Martin wrote:

> well,
> this is a very interesting train of thought.  It would be nice if we could
> find a way to use a doubletalk board in a linux invironment,  But what you
> might be able to do is tell emacs speaks the way to control a double talk
> external or a lite talk and then use the standard console keys as the
> input.  This might take some of the pressure off of those who have less
> resources.  I have two double talk internal boards here at home, and I
> wonder if they could run with emacs speaks?  I'm annew user of Linux, so
> this is a new idea to me.
> What do you all think?
> 
> 
> craig martin
> numbers@primenet.com
> packet:
> wa0wpj@wa0wpj.ampr.org
> 
> ---
> Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list@redhat.com
> Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
> Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
> To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request@redhat.com
> with subject line: unsubscribe
> 

Re: another idea for speech

[Joel Zimba]

sure, it will work fine,
just get the vendor to send you the spec on the card and
tell you the protocols and all,
and someone (or yourself)
will whip an interface right up for you.

good luck, joel

Re: another idea for speech

[Ben Van Poppel]

I haven't quite got a Doubletalk yet but i've ordered it. I was taken by 
it from the beginning. I think it would be a great idea if a driver for 
Doubletalk was to be written. The Doubletalk would be good for people 
like me who are just starting out with Linux and who'll probably want to 
hack a bit. If one gets written I'll be happy.

another idea for speech

[Craig Martin]

hi, there, 
I have suggested to the folks at Synthavoice that they might try their
hand at a product for Linux and x free 86. what do you all think of the
idea?


craig martin
numbers@primenet.com
packet:
wa0wpj@wa0wpj.ampr.org

Re: another idea for speech

[Kenneth Albanowski]

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Craig Martin wrote:

> hi, there, 
> I have suggested to the folks at Synthavoice that they might try their
> hand at a product for Linux and x free 86. what do you all think of the
> idea?

Any decent freely, cheaply, or just plain _available_ synthesis product
for Linux would be greatly appreciated, and probably not just by the blind
community.

--
Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)

Re: another idea for speech

[Jim Rebman]

Craig writes:
> 
> I have suggested to the folks at Synthavoice that they might try their
> hand at a product for Linux and x free 86. what do you all think of the
> idea?

I would rather see Synthavoice put their efforts into a top-quality NT 
screen reader.  There is a group of us who is working on one for X, and 
when it is done (please don't ask when), it will be freely available.

I would hate to see a commercial company devote any resources to a screen 
reader for X, when instead they could be concentrating on NT -- the end 
result is that there will be two top-quality screen readers, one for each 
environment, and that will allow the maximum number of blind people to be 
employed in the shortest amount of time, and that is really what should 
be driving any development efforts.

-- Jim Rebman <jrebman@netcom.com>

Re: another idea for speech

[Sam Hartman]

>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Martin <numbers@primenet.com> writes:

    Craig> hi, there, I have suggested to the folks at Synthavoice
    Craig> that they might try their hand at a product for Linux and x
    Craig> free 86. what do you all think of the idea?

	One or the other, not both please.  There are many free
operating systems that run X of some form.  There is no good technical
reason for a X screen reader to be Linux  dependent, so I don't think
it is a good idea  to introduce unnecessary non-portable features.

	I understand some people's desire to have a console mode
screen reader  and agree that this might have to be Linux dependent.
Either one of these goals would be reasonable, but  not both in the
same product.

Re: another idea for speech

[Kenneth Albanowski]

On 7 Dec 1996, Sam Hartman wrote:

> 	I understand some people's desire to have a console mode
> screen reader  and agree that this might have to be Linux dependent.
> Either one of these goals would be reasonable, but  not both in the
> same product.

Folks, please remember to distinguish between a screen reader and a voice
synthesizer. From the name, I assume the company/product orginally
mentioned (Synthavoice) involves primarily speech synthesis.

Regardless of how screen reading is implemented under the console or X,
and regardless of who does it, speech synthesis software would be useful
for Linux. 

--
Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)

Re: another idea for speech

[Steve Holmes]

Well, since most of the other solutions are *FREE* for access to
linux, I really doubt a company like Synthavoice would willingly
develope a product for Linux.  Most access vendors sell their
DOS/Windows stuff for well over $500 so they would mostlikely charge a
similar price for their Linux product.  Since I'm just playing around
with Linux here at home, I would not personally be willing to pay such
a price.
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:14:17 -0600 (CST), Craig Martin
<numbers@primenet.com> wrote:

>hi, there, 
>I have suggested to the folks at Synthavoice that they might try their
>hand at a product for Linux and x free 86. what do you all think of the
>idea?
>
>
>craig martin
>numbers@primenet.com
>packet:
>wa0wpj@wa0wpj.ampr.org
>
>---
>Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list@redhat.com
>Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
>Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
>To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request@redhat.com
>with subject line: unsubscribe
>

--
<Steve> Holmes
Tempe, Arizona  USA

Re: another idea for speech

[Kenneth Albanowski]

On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Steve Holmes wrote:

> Well, since most of the other solutions are *FREE* for access to
> linux, I really doubt a company like Synthavoice would willingly
> develope a product for Linux.  Most access vendors sell their
> DOS/Windows stuff for well over $500 so they would mostlikely charge a
> similar price for their Linux product.  Since I'm just playing around
> with Linux here at home, I would not personally be willing to pay such
> a price.

Are there any solutions, are they free, and are they usable? More to the
point, do you _need_ the functions that Synthavoice could provide, and
would Linux be a good platform to work under? If so, $500 doesn't seem
impossible. 

I don't see how any encouragement of development for blind access software
can be a bad thing, commercial or not. And the mere existance of
commercial software need not stop the amateurs.

--
Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)

Re: another idea for speech

[Mark Newbold]

Kenneth Albanowski wrote:

> Are there any solutions, are they free, and are they usable? More to the
> point, do you _need_ the functions that Synthavoice could provide, and
> would Linux be a good platform to work under? If so, $500 doesn't seem
> impossible.

Check out the Emacspeak program written by blind programmer/mathematician T V 
Raman.  It is free and very powerful.  Raman's home page is:
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/raman.html

The only downside is that at the moment, Emacspeak requires a Dectalk speech 
synthesizer.  A new Dectalk costs $1200.

Raman has put all the Dectalk-specific programming in a small "driver" program.  
So it should be easy to write drivers for other speech synthesizers and I think 
it will not be long these become available.

I also have a web page about Emacspeak:
http://www.sover.net/~manx/emacspk.html

Best regards,
  --Mark
-- 
Mark Newbold
Montpelier, Vermont USA
WWW: http://www.sover.net/~manx