Configuration Files

Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

I am going to start work on modifying some aspects of Speakup.

The first thing I want to make possible, is some standardized interface
for a configuration file.  After which, I will try to start work on some
options that I need for my own work.

As yet, I have found no way in Speakup to control spoken punctuation,
among other things, in standard reading mode.  For example, in pine, I
normally note messages sent directly to me, by running quickly through the
index, and looking for plus signs at the beginning of the line.  In
Speakup, however, I have to park the curser, then go down, and read
current character, go down and read current character, etc., since it will
not automaticly say the plus sign during normal reading.

Also, being a programmer, and something of a linguist, I like to know of
all punctuation that is not understood from context.  In other words, I
have my normal screen reader (Tinytalk, which, btw, seems to oddly have a
lot in common with Speakup, to my surprise and delight), say all
punctuation other than period, question mark, comma, and exclamation
point (all of which can be understood from context, whereas
;()[]{}"':`~@#$%^&*/<>, etc., can not).

As such, making this customizable, will be my first effort, unless (1)
someone else is already working on it; (2) it is far harder than I
think it will be; or (3) it is already possible, and I am not well read
enough to know it (very possible).

Are any of those true--am I barking up the wrong binary tree; or should I
do this?

I am going to reread all of the docs before I start, but I am not booted
to Linux right now, and thought I would post this while still in my normal
environment, so I didn't have to bother with minicom.

Apologies if I'm stepping on anybody's toes.  I have to say, that despite
my critical comments (said opinions having not changed, re the kernel, and
so on), I am *highly* impressed with Speakup, and wish to commend those
who have been developing it.

There are some bugs, which I will address later, and I think the changes
file is a bit out of date.

 Thanks

Luke

Re: Configuration Files

[erik burggraaf]

Hi, I'd be happy to have more punctuation spoken.  I don't even think my
transport will say the @ symble under linux, making it very strange to read
Email addies with.  Of course, right now, I'm just learning, still playing
with the options that are already available, so don't rush for me.  Smile.
Insidentally, I am a bit of a software junkey, and especially a screan
reader junkey.  Grin.  Would you write me off list and tell me what tinytalk
is, what platform it runs under, where to get it, and that type business?
mailto:erik@erik-burggraaf.com.
Thanks, and have a relaxing weekend.
Erik
You need more space!  Compare hard drives starting at $236 cdn for 120, $304
for 160, and $420 for 200 GB at 7200 RPM.
http://www.mlhsystems.com/momex/NavCode/Hardware/ID/HardDrive/Affiliate/ERIK
BURGGRA
Convert to $US at http://www.xe.com/ucc
----- Original Message -----
From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
To: <Speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:25 PM
Subject: Configuration Files


> I am going to start work on modifying some aspects of Speakup.
>
> The first thing I want to make possible, is some standardized interface
> for a configuration file.  After which, I will try to start work on some
> options that I need for my own work.
>
> As yet, I have found no way in Speakup to control spoken punctuation,
> among other things, in standard reading mode.  For example, in pine, I
> normally note messages sent directly to me, by running quickly through the
> index, and looking for plus signs at the beginning of the line.  In
> Speakup, however, I have to park the curser, then go down, and read
> current character, go down and read current character, etc., since it will
> not automaticly say the plus sign during normal reading.
>
> Also, being a programmer, and something of a linguist, I like to know of
> all punctuation that is not understood from context.  In other words, I
> have my normal screen reader (Tinytalk, which, btw, seems to oddly have a
> lot in common with Speakup, to my surprise and delight), say all
> punctuation other than period, question mark, comma, and exclamation
> point (all of which can be understood from context, whereas
> ;()[]{}"':`~@#$%^&*/<>, etc., can not).
>
> As such, making this customizable, will be my first effort, unless (1)
> someone else is already working on it; (2) it is far harder than I
> think it will be; or (3) it is already possible, and I am not well read
> enough to know it (very possible).
>
> Are any of those true--am I barking up the wrong binary tree; or should I
> do this?
>
> I am going to reread all of the docs before I start, but I am not booted
> to Linux right now, and thought I would post this while still in my normal
> environment, so I didn't have to bother with minicom.
>
> Apologies if I'm stepping on anybody's toes.  I have to say, that despite
> my critical comments (said opinions having not changed, re the kernel, and
> so on), I am *highly* impressed with Speakup, and wish to commend those
> who have been developing it.
>
> There are some bugs, which I will address later, and I think the changes
> file is a bit out of date.
>
>  Thanks
>
> Luke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

Re: Configuration Files

[Jude DaShiell]

I usually search for the plus signs with the w command in pine.  It's not
perfect, but it works pretty well.  It would be helpful to have speakup
speak all punctuation, at least be able to do it for a time, I figure
those playing adom and nethack could make good use of that feature.

-- 
Jude <dashielljt(at)gmpexpress-dot-net>

Re: Configuration Files

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
pretty much whatever one wishes.


-- 
The Moon is Waning Crescent (5% of Full)
So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.

So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?

I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
such file.

I would like any opinions I can get.

Luke

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:

> Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> pretty much whatever one wishes.
>
>
>

Re: Configuration Files

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

Here is how I do it:

I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
read.

I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
/etc/profile, like this:

cp -R /etc/speakup /proc

so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
directory.

So to change something I must either write the new value to
/proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
execute a command such as shown above.

This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
parameters.

HTH -

Chuck

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:

> Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
>
> So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
>
> I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> such file.
>
> I would like any opinions I can get.
>
> Luke
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
>
> > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

-- 
The Moon is Waning Crescent (5% of Full)
So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

That is good, and gives me an interesting idea, which I will investigate.

However, I would still like your opinion re what I wrote earlier.  Would a
unified, more free-form (keyword value option <nl> keyword value option),
type config file or interface, be of more use to you, and as such would it
be worth my time investigating?

Thanks

Luke


On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:

> Here is how I do it:
>
> I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
> all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
> elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
> read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
> strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
> read.
>
> I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
> /etc/profile, like this:
>
> cp -R /etc/speakup /proc
>
> so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
> configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
> directory.
>
> So to change something I must either write the new value to
> /proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
> execute a command such as shown above.
>
> This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
> starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
> synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
> but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
> parameters.
>
> HTH -
>
> Chuck
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
>
> > Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
> >
> > So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> > configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> > value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
> >
> > I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> > want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> > might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> > such file.
> >
> > I would like any opinions I can get.
> >
> > Luke
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> >
> > > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>

Re: Configuration Files

[Ryan Mann]

For a more key word-like configureation file option, you might want to
look at my Speakup -utils package.  You can put something like;
rate 9
volume 4
end
in /etc/speakupctl.conf and run "speakupctl restore"
You can download this package at
ftp://ftp.linux-speakup.org/pub/linux/goodies/speakup-utils.tar.gz.




Ryan

It's better to make a difference than to make a million.


On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:

> That is good, and gives me an interesting idea, which I will investigate.
>
> However, I would still like your opinion re what I wrote earlier.  Would a
> unified, more free-form (keyword value option <nl> keyword value option),
> type config file or interface, be of more use to you, and as such would it
> be worth my time investigating?
>
> Thanks
>
> Luke
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
>
> > Here is how I do it:
> >
> > I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
> > all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
> > elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
> > read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
> > strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
> > read.
> >
> > I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
> > /etc/profile, like this:
> >
> > cp -R /etc/speakup /proc
> >
> > so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
> > configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
> > directory.
> >
> > So to change something I must either write the new value to
> > /proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
> > execute a command such as shown above.
> >
> > This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
> > starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
> > synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
> > but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
> > parameters.
> >
> > HTH -
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
> >
> > > Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
> > >
> > > So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> > > configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> > > value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
> > >
> > > I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> > > want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> > > might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> > > such file.
> > >
> > > I would like any opinions I can get.
> > >
> > > Luke
> > >
> > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> > >
> > > > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > > > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > > > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > > > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > > > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > > > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > > > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > > > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > > > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

I have downloaded it, and will look it over.  Sounds exactly like what I
am looking for initially, although if it does what I think it does
(tweeking /proc entries), it still isn't quite what I had in mind, but is
far better than tweeking /proc entries.:)

Thanks

Luke



On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Ryan Mann wrote:

> For a more key word-like configureation file option, you might want to
> look at my Speakup -utils package.  You can put something like;
> rate 9
> volume 4
> end
> in /etc/speakupctl.conf and run "speakupctl restore"
> You can download this package at
> ftp://ftp.linux-speakup.org/pub/linux/goodies/speakup-utils.tar.gz.
>
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
> It's better to make a difference than to make a million.
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
>
> > That is good, and gives me an interesting idea, which I will investigate.
> >
> > However, I would still like your opinion re what I wrote earlier.  Would a
> > unified, more free-form (keyword value option <nl> keyword value option),
> > type config file or interface, be of more use to you, and as such would it
> > be worth my time investigating?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Luke
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> >
> > > Here is how I do it:
> > >
> > > I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
> > > all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
> > > elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
> > > read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
> > > strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
> > > read.
> > >
> > > I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
> > > /etc/profile, like this:
> > >
> > > cp -R /etc/speakup /proc
> > >
> > > so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
> > > configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > So to change something I must either write the new value to
> > > /proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
> > > execute a command such as shown above.
> > >
> > > This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
> > > starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
> > > synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
> > > but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
> > > parameters.
> > >
> > > HTH -
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
> > > >
> > > > So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> > > > configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> > > > value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
> > > >
> > > > I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> > > > want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> > > > might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> > > > such file.
> > > >
> > > > I would like any opinions I can get.
> > > >
> > > > Luke
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > > > > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > > > > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > > > > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > > > > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > > > > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > > > > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > > > > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > > > > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Configuration Files

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

Yes, it would definitely be worth your while, and a benefit to
everyone. Linux and speakup need eventually to gravitate toward
the more average user, and configuring speakup is one of those
tasks that everyone might like to do more easily. I only wanted
you to know that many of the primitives you might need to rely on
are already lying there waiting to be pulled together into a
nicer tool.

Chuck

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:

> That is good, and gives me an interesting idea, which I will investigate.
>
> However, I would still like your opinion re what I wrote earlier.  Would a
> unified, more free-form (keyword value option <nl> keyword value option),
> type config file or interface, be of more use to you, and as such would it
> be worth my time investigating?
>
> Thanks
>
> Luke
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
>
> > Here is how I do it:
> >
> > I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
> > all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
> > elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
> > read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
> > strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
> > read.
> >
> > I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
> > /etc/profile, like this:
> >
> > cp -R /etc/speakup /proc
> >
> > so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
> > configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
> > directory.
> >
> > So to change something I must either write the new value to
> > /proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
> > execute a command such as shown above.
> >
> > This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
> > starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
> > synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
> > but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
> > parameters.
> >
> > HTH -
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
> >
> > > Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
> > >
> > > So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> > > configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> > > value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
> > >
> > > I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> > > want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> > > might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> > > such file.
> > >
> > > I would like any opinions I can get.
> > >
> > > Luke
> > >
> > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> > >
> > > > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > > > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > > > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > > > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > > > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > > > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > > > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > > > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > > > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

-- 
The Moon is Waning Crescent (5% of Full)
So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

Okay, thanks.  That helps initially.  As I believe this speakup-utils
package is doing, those can be written to by a program, which can read a
human-configurable file to determine the values.

This may be the way to go, but it is not very integrated with the program
itself, and it may eventually be more valuable to make direct
modifications to the internals, maybe to something not provided in /proc.

Leave it to me to start planning the hardest way of handling something,
long before considering that there may be an easier way of doing it.  In
this case, there is an easier way, but I still think that my original
solution may prove the better way to go in the end, while this will
certainly work for now.

I still want comments on this idea (particularly from Kirc if he's
reading).

Luke

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:

> Yes, it would definitely be worth your while, and a benefit to
> everyone. Linux and speakup need eventually to gravitate toward
> the more average user, and configuring speakup is one of those
> tasks that everyone might like to do more easily. I only wanted
> you to know that many of the primitives you might need to rely on
> are already lying there waiting to be pulled together into a
> nicer tool.
>
> Chuck
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
>
> > That is good, and gives me an interesting idea, which I will investigate.
> >
> > However, I would still like your opinion re what I wrote earlier.  Would a
> > unified, more free-form (keyword value option <nl> keyword value option),
> > type config file or interface, be of more use to you, and as such would it
> > be worth my time investigating?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Luke
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> >
> > > Here is how I do it:
> > >
> > > I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
> > > all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
> > > elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
> > > read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
> > > strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
> > > read.
> > >
> > > I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
> > > /etc/profile, like this:
> > >
> > > cp -R /etc/speakup /proc
> > >
> > > so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
> > > configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > So to change something I must either write the new value to
> > > /proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
> > > execute a command such as shown above.
> > >
> > > This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
> > > starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
> > > synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
> > > but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
> > > parameters.
> > >
> > > HTH -
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
> > > >
> > > > So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> > > > configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> > > > value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
> > > >
> > > > I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> > > > want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> > > > might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> > > > such file.
> > > >
> > > > I would like any opinions I can get.
> > > >
> > > > Luke
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > > > > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > > > > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > > > > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > > > > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > > > > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > > > > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > > > > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > > > > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>

Re: Configuration Files

[Kirk Reiser]

Well, you have to keep some things in mind when discussing or thinking
about changes to speakup for whatever reason: one is speakup is kernel
code.  Two is speakup is kernel code. 'grin'

What I mean is the fewer things you can do in kernel code the better.
On the other hand you have to maintain a way to communicate with
speakup to control it's facilities such as synth rate, punctuation
level and the like.  We used to have a separate program with sent
ioctl() calls to the kernel to control speakups facilities.  Then the
popular way of communicating with kernel space changed by Alan Cox and
Linus.  The /proc file system came along where you could either use a
separate program to change settings indirectly through the /proc file
system or directly by munnipulating the files under /proc.  We rewrote
speakup at that point to use the newly smiled upon method of
communicating with the kernel.

So saying all of the above I would not recommend changes to speakup to
change it's settings directly because of the amount of time which
would need to be spent in kernel space to accomplish those changes.
Specifically I mean writing functions which would have to wait for
user input of data such as rate changes because of the time involved.
We do that now with the gotoxy functions and I've never been
particularly happy about that.  Fortunately it doesn't get used very
often, so it isn't much of a problem and it will be needed for future
speakup enhancements.

Now, changes which would be useful and as you pointed out are already
on the todo list is a mechanism to identify what program/application
is running on this console and load a configuration change if one is
available to modify speakup for this app.  I don't really think it is
a very big task to make this change but it is one I have not
undertaken because of all the other modifications to speakup I need to
make as well as all the other programming projects I've been working
on lately.

There are a number of other enhancements which really should be done
as well such as determining background attributes and not speaking
them when highlighting is changed.  This would be very useful when
working through a menu or program such as lynx.  More work on cursor
mode would also be a very nice thing to complete for those that fine
automatic speaking of lines and characters a requirement to comfort
level of using speakup.

These are just two examples of additions which speakup sorely needs in
some folks opinions.  So I would incourage you or anyone else
interested in making speakup better, to adopt as projects which will
make a significant difference in it's usability.

Looking back through this I'm not sure I actually answered your
question.  You did ask my opinion and you definitely got that.
Anything you wish to do to help speakups development is appreciated.
The more needed the enhancements the more appreciation will be accrued.

  Kirk

-- 

Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Kirk Reiser wrote:

> Well, you have to keep some things in mind when discussing or thinking
> about changes to speakup for whatever reason: one is speakup is kernel
> code.  Two is speakup is kernel code. 'grin'

Man, have I noticed.:)

> What I mean is the fewer things you can do in kernel code the better.

I will leave this here, as the cardinal rule of design.  I am one of those
who believes speakup probably shouldn't be in the kernel to begin with,
but I do not trust my abilities even a fraction enough to tackle that
perceived problem, and I am wavering ever so slightly as to whether it is,
in fact, a problem.  Still, the above statement has the ring of moral
authority with me, so worry not.

> So saying all of the above I would not recommend changes to speakup to
> change it's settings directly because of the amount of time which
> would need to be spent in kernel space to accomplish those changes.
> Specifically I mean writing functions which would have to wait for
> user input of data such as rate changes because of the time involved.

No no no!  Any changes would be done either by a user level program.  The
only thing that speakup would have to do, is load a binary file (don't
like that idea, because it would be arch specific), file of number sets
which had meaning only to speakup (bad because the users could too easily
corrupt it), or hex file.
>From the Speakup side, there would be no direct user interaction for
configuration, except maybe for the already existent /proc/speakup
interface.

> Now, changes which would be useful and as you pointed out are already

I will just say this about the changes you suggested as alternatives.
I am predisposed to writing the config interface for a few reasons.  One
of which is that I have experience doing this, and have a fairly developed
mental picture of how it should happen.
Another is that it is a change that interests me, and that I think I can
probably accomplish, whereas things such as attribute
identification, cursor tracking, etc., are items for which I can
not even begin to conceive a solution.

> on the todo list is a mechanism to identify what program/application
> is running on this console and load a configuration change if one is
> available to modify speakup for this app.  I don't really think it is

and where would it get said configuration changes?  Perhaps from a config
file?  <chuckle>

> Looking back through this I'm not sure I actually answered your
> question.  You did ask my opinion and you definitely got that.
> Anything you wish to do to help speakups development is appreciated.
> The more needed the enhancements the more appreciation will be accrued.

Yes, I believe so.  I'm putting you in the "probably not worth it"
column.:)  I'll probably end up writing it anyway, or at least
starting/trying, unless you flat out ask me to abandon this line of
activity, in which case I most likely will, in favor of something else.
However, I really do think there is long term value in this.

Luke

Re: Configuration Files

[Kirk Reiser]

I have no problem with you going ahead and doing anything.  This is an
open source project and all useful changes will be incorporated
providing they're not Rube Goldbergs.

Changes to configuration based on application would need to be read
from files to be really useful.  Those files could be any number of
things from lists of configurations to executable scripts which insert
the changes through the /proc fiel system.  That will depend on the
people/person that writes the enhancement.

A few folks have written configuration systems to date.  If you think
yours will be better, then definitely go for it.

  Kirk

-- 

Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061

Re: Configuration Files

[Buddy Brannan]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:15:23PM -0500, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> I have no problem with you going ahead and doing anything.  This is an
> open source project and all useful changes will be incorporated
> providing they're not Rube Goldbergs.

And besides being open source...it is free software. 
-- 
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV/3   | "And if the ground yawned,
Phone: (814) 455-7333     | I'd step to the side and say,
Email: davros@ycardz.com  | "Hey ground! I'm nobody's lunch!"
http://www.ycardz.com/    | --Eddie From Ohio

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Kirk Reiser wrote:

> A few folks have written configuration systems to date.  If you think
> yours will be better, then definitely go for it.

So far, I have the one speakup-utils package.  If there are others, I
haven't found them yet, but I did not go through google to date.

Luke

Re: Configuration Files

[Toby Fisher]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Luke Davis wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Kirk Reiser wrote:

<snip>

> > What I mean is the fewer things you can do in kernel code the
better.
>
> I will leave this here, as the cardinal rule of design.  I am one of those
> who believes speakup probably shouldn't be in the kernel to begin with,
> but I do not trust my abilities even a fraction enough to tackle that
> perceived problem, and I am wavering ever so slightly as to whether it is,
> in fact, a problem.  Still, the above statement has the ring of moral
> authority with me, so worry not.

I assume, then, you're going to write a bios chip, for the same cost as
any other, that has speech onboard, so we don't need Speakup to be in the
kernel? (grin)

Good luck mate, I look forward to it.

-- 
Toby Fisher	Email: toby@tjfisher.co.uk
Tel.: +44(0)1480 417272	Mobile: +44(0)7974 363239
ICQ: #61744808
   Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
   See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

Hehheh.  I just reread my original question below, and it sounds a bit
high-minded, or something of that sort.  That wasn't really the idea, and
I apologize if anyone took it that way.  I want to do something that is
not being done for the project, that I as a user could use.  If this was
of little interest, I would have probably tried for beeping caps, screen
searching ability, or one of the other things that seem like good ideas.
However, I like this idea of making this as configurable as a MS
environment screen reader, and I figure having a config file interface,
regardless of whether it actually *does* anything right now, is a good
start on that.

Luke


On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:

> Yes, it would definitely be worth your while, and a benefit to
> everyone. Linux and speakup need eventually to gravitate toward
> the more average user, and configuring speakup is one of those
> tasks that everyone might like to do more easily. I only wanted
> you to know that many of the primitives you might need to rely on
> are already lying there waiting to be pulled together into a
> nicer tool.
>
> Chuck
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
>
> > That is good, and gives me an interesting idea, which I will investigate.
> >
> > However, I would still like your opinion re what I wrote earlier.  Would a
> > unified, more free-form (keyword value option <nl> keyword value option),
> > type config file or interface, be of more use to you, and as such would it
> > be worth my time investigating?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Luke
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> >
> > > Here is how I do it:
> > >
> > > I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
> > > all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
> > > elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
> > > read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
> > > strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
> > > read.
> > >
> > > I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
> > > /etc/profile, like this:
> > >
> > > cp -R /etc/speakup /proc
> > >
> > > so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
> > > configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > So to change something I must either write the new value to
> > > /proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
> > > execute a command such as shown above.
> > >
> > > This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
> > > starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
> > > synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
> > > but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
> > > parameters.
> > >
> > > HTH -
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
> > > >
> > > > So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> > > > configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> > > > value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
> > > >
> > > > I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> > > > want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> > > > might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> > > > such file.
> > > >
> > > > I would like any opinions I can get.
> > > >
> > > > Luke
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > > > > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > > > > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > > > > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > > > > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > > > > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > > > > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > > > > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > > > > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>

Re: Configuration Files

[Kenny Hitt]

Hi.  I just created a set of one line scripts to change values of
speakup.  This way I can just type things like 
rate 7
to set the rate to 7.  I just call these scripts during log in to set
default values.  If I want to change a value, I just get to a shell
prompt and type the command I want.  Since it's always posible to get to
the shell from any program, it takes no time.
If you find editing a config file easier, then go for it.  That is what
makes the Unix world so cool, you have many ways to do the same thing.

          Kenny

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:10:37PM -0600, Luke Davis wrote:
> That is good, and gives me an interesting idea, which I will investigate.
> 
> However, I would still like your opinion re what I wrote earlier.  Would a
> unified, more free-form (keyword value option <nl> keyword value option),
> type config file or interface, be of more use to you, and as such would it
> be worth my time investigating?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Luke

Re: Configuration Files

[Dave Hunt]

Ken,


You now have a simple "config" mechanism.  All you need do is write
yet another script, what calls your one-liners.  Even give this one a
name like "speakup.conf" in your home directiry.  

-Dave
>>>>> "Kenny" == Kenny Hitt <kennyhitt@knology.net> writes:

    Kenny> Hi.  I just created a set of one line scripts to change
    Kenny> values of speakup.  This way I can just type things like

...

Re: Configuration Files

[Kenny Hitt]

Hi.  I could add the commands to my .bash_profile but I rarely boot my
system.  I just type the commands I want the first time I log in after a
boot.  The system I use for mail hasn't been booted since Jan 2.  Back
on Jan 2, I had to type
rate d
at my first log in.  If I remove the synth from the system, I would have
to type the rate command again when I reconnect the synth but it isn't a
problem.

          Kenny


On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:21:59AM -0500, Dave Hunt wrote:
> Ken,
> 
> 
> You now have a simple "config" mechanism.  All you need do is write
> yet another script, what calls your one-liners.  Even give this one a
> name like "speakup.conf" in your home directiry.  
> 
> -Dave
> >>>>> "Kenny" == Kenny Hitt <kennyhitt@knology.net> writes:
> 
>     Kenny> Hi.  I just created a set of one line scripts to change
>     Kenny> values of speakup.  This way I can just type things like
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Configuration Files

[Janina Sajka]

I do almost the same thing. But, on my laptops, I find that I need
somewhat different settings for different synthesizers, depending on
which one I'm using at the moment.

So, I keep a directory for each synthesizer in /etc/speakup, using the
speakup_synth= string as the directory name, ltlk, dectlk, etc. My
initialization command is:

cp -r /etc/speakup/`cat /proc/speakup/synth`/* /proc/speakup

Actually, I go one step further. I put this in an alias so that I can
easily call it again should things get mucked up somehow:

alias s="cp -r /etc/speakup/`cat /proc/speakup/synth`/* /proc/speakup"



Chuck Hallenbeck writes:
> From: Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckh@novocon.net>
> 
> Here is how I do it:
> 
> I maintain a directory under /etc called speakup which contains
> all the elements of /proc/speakup which are configurable. Some
> elements under /proc/speakup are not configurable; they are
> read-only. But such things as rate, pitch, punc_level, and the
> strings for some and most punctuation, can be written as well as
> read.
> 
> I have a command in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local, and again in
> /etc/profile, like this:
> 
> cp -R /etc/speakup /proc
> 
> so that on bootup and whenever a user logs in, speakup is
> configured to whatever the values are in the /etc/speakup
> directory.
> 
> So to change something I must either write the new value to
> /proc/speakup, or else edit the stuff in /etc/speakup and then
> execute a command such as shown above.
> 
> This is not particularly user friendly either, but it is a good
> starting point. I believe Janina and others who use more than one
> synth from time to time have worked out an even more elaborate
> but more flexible method of saving and restoring speakup
> parameters.
> 
> HTH -
> 
> Chuck
> 
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Luke Davis wrote:
> 
> > Useful knowledge, which I previously did not have.
> >
> > So should all configuration be handled this way, thus making a
> > configuration file approach meaningless, or is there still potential for
> > value to that idea, either now or for future configurable options?
> >
> > I don't particularly mind writing values to /proc entries every time I
> > want to change the punctuation level, but I am not all users, and some
> > might want a more intuitive way of handling this, such as an rc or other
> > such file.
> >
> > I would like any opinions I can get.
> >
> > Luke
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
> >
> > > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> 
> -- 
> The Moon is Waning Crescent (5% of Full)
> So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina@afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Re: Configuration Files

[Janina Sajka]

I think one clever enhancement for future Speakup versions would be to
have application specific voicings enabled. As Chuck points out, it's
easy enough to add chars to /proc/speakup/punc_most and
/proc/speakup/punc_some, but the results are global across all consoles
and running applications.

It would be clever and useful to facilitate particular settings for
particular programs. So, in Luke's case, he would have the plus sign
spoken by Pine, but not by Lynx in another console, for instance.


Chuck Hallenbeck writes:
> From: Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckh@novocon.net>
> 
> Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> pretty much whatever one wishes.
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Moon is Waning Crescent (5% of Full)
> So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina@afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Re: Configuration Files

[Jude DaShiell]

It appears there are tone entries in /proc/speakup, how are those used?

-- 
Jude <dashielljt(at)gmpexpress-dot-net>

Re: Configuration Files

[Kenny Hitt]

Hi.  The effect of changing the tone will depend on the synth.  On my
double talks, it does seem to act like a tone controll.  You can tet
some wild voices by playing with tone and voice values.

          Kenny

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:27:00PM -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> It appears there are tone entries in /proc/speakup, how are those used?
> 
> -- 
> Jude <dashielljt(at)gmpexpress-dot-net>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

I was trying to figure out how to do that earlier, with no luck, short of
rewriting many many many things.

Once I dig into the source, however, I'll see if I see anything that makes
it easier than I think it will be.

Something along these lines was mentioned in one of the todo files, so
they may already be working on this.

This is less interesting to me right now, for personal reasons.  In all
the years I have had on screen readers, for the functions that Speakup
currently, and is expected to, provide(s), this wouldn't be of too much
use.  If I want to hear most punctuation, I rarely want to hear less,
unless I am reading fiction, or something of the like, in which case I
just disable those anoying punctuations.  If we were dealing with screen
windows, bar tracking, and other such interesting things that Speakup
doesn't even seem to be planning to do, then maybe; but I just don't see
the value of it yet, except as a very high end convenience.  However,
that's just me, and I do realize that it should be possible at some point.

Luke


On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:

> I think one clever enhancement for future Speakup versions would be to
> have application specific voicings enabled. As Chuck points out, it's
> easy enough to add chars to /proc/speakup/punc_most and
> /proc/speakup/punc_some, but the results are global across all consoles
> and running applications.
>
> It would be clever and useful to facilitate particular settings for
> particular programs. So, in Luke's case, he would have the plus sign
> spoken by Pine, but not by Lynx in another console, for instance.
>
>
> Chuck Hallenbeck writes:
> > From: Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckh@novocon.net>
> >
> > Speakup presently allows punctuation level to be set at none,
> > some, most, or all. The some and most levels can be configured by
> > the user to include or exclude whatever he or she wishes. You
> > select the level by writing a number to /proc/speakup/punc_level,
> > and you can edit and rewrite the some and most strings to that
> > directory too. I am not sure what other functionality would be
> > added by Luke's suggestions. Maybe I am misunderstanding
> > something, but it seems to me the existing features will do
> > pretty much whatever one wishes.
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Moon is Waning Crescent (5% of Full)
> > So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

RE: Configuration Files

[Mirabella, Mathew J]

hi Luke.

I too would be interested in knowing what tinytalk is and where it can be run.
and i would also be interested in ways of customising speakup. I am very new to linux and very new to speakup... 

for those interested, yasr is another screen reader for linux, the yasr means yet another screen reader.  I don't know much about it, just that it exists.

there is ASAP, vocal eyes and jaws freeware for MSDOS and other DOS systems.  i have heard that asap is one of the best DOS screen readers, similar to speakup in some ways.

there is the artic transports business vision and winvision, for DOS and Windows 3x systems.
there is of course the jaws for windows and window eyes screen readers, and i have also seen a system called HAL, made by Dolphin.  this works on Windows 9x/Nt/2000 systems.
Zoomtext, mainly an enlarger, for windows, also has a speech component.
and lastly, microsofts own weak narrater and magnifier packages that come with the os.  They are not really good, but they exist.

also there are speech interfaces for particular applications in windows like ibm home page reader (a talking browser) and some other adaptive software people have written which uses the microsoft SAPI speech tts engine and voices.


-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Davis [mailto:ldavis@shellworld.net]
Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2003 7:26 AM
To: Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
Subject: Configuration Files


I am going to start work on modifying some aspects of Speakup.

The first thing I want to make possible, is some standardized interface
for a configuration file.  After which, I will try to start work on some
options that I need for my own work.

As yet, I have found no way in Speakup to control spoken punctuation,
among other things, in standard reading mode.  For example, in pine, I
normally note messages sent directly to me, by running quickly through the
index, and looking for plus signs at the beginning of the line.  In
Speakup, however, I have to park the curser, then go down, and read
current character, go down and read current character, etc., since it will
not automaticly say the plus sign during normal reading.

Also, being a programmer, and something of a linguist, I like to know of
all punctuation that is not understood from context.  In other words, I
have my normal screen reader (Tinytalk, which, btw, seems to oddly have a
lot in common with Speakup, to my surprise and delight), say all
punctuation other than period, question mark, comma, and exclamation
point (all of which can be understood from context, whereas
;()[]{}"':`~@#$%^&*/<>, etc., can not).

As such, making this customizable, will be my first effort, unless (1)
someone else is already working on it; (2) it is far harder than I
think it will be; or (3) it is already possible, and I am not well read
enough to know it (very possible).

Are any of those true--am I barking up the wrong binary tree; or should I
do this?

I am going to reread all of the docs before I start, but I am not booted
to Linux right now, and thought I would post this while still in my normal
environment, so I didn't have to bother with minicom.

Apologies if I'm stepping on anybody's toes.  I have to say, that despite
my critical comments (said opinions having not changed, re the kernel, and
so on), I am *highly* impressed with Speakup, and wish to commend those
who have been developing it.

There are some bugs, which I will address later, and I think the changes
file is a bit out of date.

 Thanks

Luke

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

RE: Configuration Files

[Luke Davis]

Tinytalk is a little, but very powerful, DOS speech package.

Contact me off list if you want a copy--I'm trying to track down the
latest version now (2.67), but it seems to have dropped off the net, and I
don't trust my copies to be complete.

I'm looking, and will send to anyone who wants them.

Luke


On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Mirabella, Mathew J wrote:

> hi Luke.
>
> I too would be interested in knowing what tinytalk is and where it can be run.
> and i would also be interested in ways of customising speakup. I am very new to linux and very new to speakup...
>
> for those interested, yasr is another screen reader for linux, the yasr means yet another screen reader.  I don't know much about it, just that it exists.
>
> there is ASAP, vocal eyes and jaws freeware for MSDOS and other DOS systems.  i have heard that asap is one of the best DOS screen readers, similar to speakup in some ways.
>
> there is the artic transports business vision and winvision, for DOS and Windows 3x systems.
> there is of course the jaws for windows and window eyes screen readers, and i have also seen a system called HAL, made by Dolphin.  this works on Windows 9x/Nt/2000 systems.
> Zoomtext, mainly an enlarger, for windows, also has a speech component.
> and lastly, microsofts own weak narrater and magnifier packages that come with the os.  They are not really good, but they exist.
>
> also there are speech interfaces for particular applications in windows like ibm home page reader (a talking browser) and some other adaptive software people have written which uses the microsoft SAPI speech tts engine and voices.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Davis [mailto:ldavis@shellworld.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2003 7:26 AM
> To: Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> Subject: Configuration Files
>
>
> I am going to start work on modifying some aspects of Speakup.
>
> The first thing I want to make possible, is some standardized interface
> for a configuration file.  After which, I will try to start work on some
> options that I need for my own work.
>
> As yet, I have found no way in Speakup to control spoken punctuation,
> among other things, in standard reading mode.  For example, in pine, I
> normally note messages sent directly to me, by running quickly through the
> index, and looking for plus signs at the beginning of the line.  In
> Speakup, however, I have to park the curser, then go down, and read
> current character, go down and read current character, etc., since it will
> not automaticly say the plus sign during normal reading.
>
> Also, being a programmer, and something of a linguist, I like to know of
> all punctuation that is not understood from context.  In other words, I
> have my normal screen reader (Tinytalk, which, btw, seems to oddly have a
> lot in common with Speakup, to my surprise and delight), say all
> punctuation other than period, question mark, comma, and exclamation
> point (all of which can be understood from context, whereas
> ;()[]{}"':`~@#$%^&*/<>, etc., can not).
>
> As such, making this customizable, will be my first effort, unless (1)
> someone else is already working on it; (2) it is far harder than I
> think it will be; or (3) it is already possible, and I am not well read
> enough to know it (very possible).
>
> Are any of those true--am I barking up the wrong binary tree; or should I
> do this?
>
> I am going to reread all of the docs before I start, but I am not booted
> to Linux right now, and thought I would post this while still in my normal
> environment, so I didn't have to bother with minicom.
>
> Apologies if I'm stepping on anybody's toes.  I have to say, that despite
> my critical comments (said opinions having not changed, re the kernel, and
> so on), I am *highly* impressed with Speakup, and wish to commend those
> who have been developing it.
>
> There are some bugs, which I will address later, and I think the changes
> file is a bit out of date.
>
>  Thanks
>
> Luke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

RE: Configuration Files

[Travis Siegel]

tiny talk (so far as I know) was only up to ver 1.67.  I wasn't aware of
any later versions.  If you have them, please send them along, I'd be
intereasted in having a copy.  Of course, if 1.67 is what you want, login
to ftp.softcon.com and get it from the speech directory.  Or use
www.softcon.com/ftp/speech, you can download it there as well.