suggestions for Speakup

[Shaun Oliver]

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 at 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 at goanna.net.au
Icq: 76958435