From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [128.83.126.142] (helo=mail.utexas.edu) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with smtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15qe4E-000426-00 for ; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 13:19:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 5752 invoked by uid 0); 8 Oct 2001 17:19:44 -0000 Received: from resnet-17-147.dorm.utexas.edu (HELO TomAss.utexas.edu) (129.116.17.147) by umbs-smtp-5 with SMTP; 8 Oct 2001 17:19:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (stivers_t@localhost) by TomAss.utexas.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f98HJg819781 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:19:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:19:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Thomas Stivers To: Subject: Re: Speakup Configurator 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: 2.0.6 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: You could use the pageup and pagedown keys to increment and decrement values by larger amounts. I am not sure which key would be preferred. On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Steve Holmes wrote: > I think what I'm gonna do is try and accomodate Speakout and Doubletalk > first. This will enable me to get the program to save valid parameter > features and ranges for each synthesiser so that the proper features and > ranges can be made available automatically depending on which synthesiser > is currently being used. Once this is accomplished, I should be able to > add other synthesisers in the future with much less fuss. Right now, I > hard coded things thinking of one box and well I got painted into a corner > real fast! Gee, thought my programming skills could have helped me avoid > that trap:). > > One general question I would like to ask of all synthesiser users though, > What about parameters that allow for a hundred or more choices? I'm > thinking of a range of 00 to 99 or something like that. With my current > design, one could end up having to press up or down arrow a hundred times > to make the complete loop. Would it be necessary to stop at every point or > would it be acceptable to say, skip every ten values to scale our keyboard > approach to having ten choices instead of a hundred. > > Whad do you all think? > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >