re square1

re square1

[garym]

program now officially called screenvoice for linux (svl)
available on my web site

http://www.gate.net/~garym/index.html

i believe accent synths have same onboard dictionary and thus i willendeavor to make 
loading the dictionary into memory part of the program.
for now i use a config file where pronunciations are stored.
thats because my echo pc doesnt have such a buffer.
regards brett barback
garym@gate.net

re square1

[garym]

check out my web site for the package
http://www.gate.net/~garym/index.html
the program is now conclusively named screenvoice for linux (svl)

steve,
I want as much 
info on as many devices as i can gather.
your mail has spawned an idea in my mind to 
develop a utility for gleaning the commands directly from the synth by process of elimination.
by testing certain character sequences sent to the synth and reporting their actions.
for instance.
lets say you have a synth that you dont know what control commands are used for it.
these would be single or multiple byte strings which the synth recognizes and which alter its behavior
changing pitch, rate, and volume, etc.etc
lets say the program tested a series of codes until you hear something change...you hit a key and then attempt to repeat the action.
by backin up to the proper code and observing its effect ya can determine what code is changing pitch.
which is changin volume...etc.etcc
whatcha think...
otherwise i may be able to produce the effects by duplicating the keystrokes.
let me think bout it and discuss it with some others who have similar devices...
brett barback
garym@gate.net

Re: re square1

[Steve Holmes]

With the shell mode of Emacs, can you run programs like Pine or lynx? I
know, Emacs has a mail reader, but I like Pine better.

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Jason White wrote:

> Without wishing to start a controversy, I would like to point out that
> Emacspeak is a much more sophisticated and efficient access tool than a
> conventional screen reader, as T.V. Raman's papers on the subject
> endeavour to demonstrate. I would suggest carefully reading these
> documents before making ill-informed remarks concerning the merits of
> Emacspeak as compared with a traditional screen reader. This comment is in
> no way intended to suggest that anyone has been guilty of such poorly
> substantiated polemics in the past, but merely to suggest the importance
> of understanding the concepts underlying Emacspeak before drawing
> conclusions.
> 
> I shall personally have the opportunity to try Emacspeak very soon
> (probably the next few weeks).
> 
> 
> ---
> 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: re square1

[Jason White]

Without wishing to start a controversy, I would like to point out that
Emacspeak is a much more sophisticated and efficient access tool than a
conventional screen reader, as T.V. Raman's papers on the subject
endeavour to demonstrate. I would suggest carefully reading these
documents before making ill-informed remarks concerning the merits of
Emacspeak as compared with a traditional screen reader. This comment is in
no way intended to suggest that anyone has been guilty of such poorly
substantiated polemics in the past, but merely to suggest the importance
of understanding the concepts underlying Emacspeak before drawing
conclusions.

I shall personally have the opportunity to try Emacspeak very soon
(probably the next few weeks).

re square1

[garym]

i hadda double check , but i thought blinux was 
"the blinux documentation and development" project.
perhaps this should be called the emacspeak development list.

my getting involved in this project is based on one thing.
selfishness.
Last time i put emacspeak on my system  it couldnt find the dectalk synth it wanted so badly.
if theres other drivers for it then fine, i will check em out.
not having had the opportunity to use it yet i wont criticize emacspeak.
it's probably very good.
at this moment i feel a profound sense of bias though and would like to suggest that screader is a superior product and in my opinion has more potential than something like emacs.
like i said i dont knwo for sure but i am gonna find out sooner or later.

as far as it being more cumbersome to build multiple synth support into my square1 sources, that is my perrogative and i will do it to the extent that i get help from vendors, or users of different synths, who would like to evaluate its worth.
that aside i will make my program as user freindly to anyone with any synth there is and i will offer them the assistance they need to adapt it  to what they are using.

this isnt a contest of whose product is best, not to me it isnt.
but i have only scratched the surface here, and i amsure to better my knowledge of whats out there already and what i can do to contribute to it.

regards, brett barback
garym@gate.net