From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from server1.shellworld.net ([64.39.15.178] ident=root) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 16P9A4-0006lQ-00 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:24:28 -0500 Received: from localhost (amanda@localhost) by server1.shellworld.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0BLOVq63960 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:24:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from amanda@shellworld.net) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:24:30 -0500 (EST) From: Amanda Lee To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca Subject: Re: suggestions for Speakup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca Errors-To: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.7 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Some status lines are pretty obnoxious with blinking clocks and junk like that. Haven't seen much of this in linux/unix but at times you just don't want to hear everythint that is displayed on the screen each time you get a screenful. Amanda Lee On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Shaun Oliver wrote: > just to ad to this thread, > could some of what's ben suggested not be handled by the user writing a > shell script or as chuck suggested just not worrying about it? > I find speakup works fine as it is. > the numlock feature is certainly a good idea. as for the frames/windows, > right at the moment I don't know why I'd want some parts of the screen > not spoken. > that's just my thoughts anyhow. > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Charles Hallenbeck > wrote: > > > On 11 Jan 2002, Kirk Reiser wrote: > > > > > On another note, mentioning that something should be there because it > > > is part of windows/dos screen review packages is a non-starter with > > > me. That means we should do something because it is available in that > > > other o.s. I base what needs to be done on what features seem > > > reasonable to provide better access to linux. I am not at all > > > interested in keeping up with those other packages. So if you folks > > > want to make a comparison based on features, you might as well just > > > piss off. > > > > Kirk, > > > > I support your position completely! Speakup is at the point where > > it is vulnerable to the bells and whistles syndrome, where folks > > want to throw in the kitchen sink. Stick to the straight and > > narrow and make sure each feature under consideration really > > belongs in a screen reader. Examples: the cut and paste feature > > really did belong; the reinitialization feature really does not. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > *<<<=-=>>>*<<<=-=>>>*<<<=-=>>>*<<<=-=>>>* > > Visit me at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh > > The Moon is Waning Crescent (4% of Full) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > -- > Shaun Oliver > > Marriage is a three ring circus: > engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering. > -- Roger Price > > Email: shauno@goanna.net.au > Icq: 76958435 > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >