An idea,

[John covici]

Well, I am not sure how it worked, but I once tried an X server for
windows which was able to figure out the controls under Linux and my
windows screen reader was able to read them after a fashion, so I
wonder if there is some window information passed to the Xserver after
all.

on Wednesday 07/27/2005 Kelly Prescott(prescott at deltav.org) wrote
 > hmm, a interesting concept...
 > The problem is that by the time the x server sees most of the stuff, it is 
 > just screen position renderings.  The server does not have a concept of 
 > letters, characters, etc.
 > The server knows where you click on a screen, for example, but it just 
 > sends the information to the under lying application which is responsible 
 > for deciding if you have clicked on a button etc.
 > This is a over simplified explaination, but for our purposes, it will 
 > do...
 > Bottom line is that what ever toolbox, library, wigit set, rendering app, 
 > or what ever, it must feed the textual information to some interface for 
 > the screen reader to get at it so it can be read.
 > Hope this helps.
 > kp
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Lorenzo Taylor wrote:
 > 
 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 > > Hash: SHA1
 > >
 > > Here's another idea, maybe no one has thought of it yet, or maybe it is
 > > impossible to implement, but here it goes.
 > >
 > > It seems that the existing approaches for X screen readers should be taking a
 > > look at Speakup as a model.  Gnopernicus, for example, is using libraries that
 > > rely on certain information ent by the underlying application libraries.
 > > Unfortunately, this implementation causes only some apps to speak while others
 > > which use the same widgets but whose libraries don't send messages to the
 > > accessibility system will not speak.  But it occurs to me that X is simply a
 > > protocol by which client applications send messages to a server which renders
 > > the proper text, windows, buttons and other widgets on the screen.  I believe
 > > that a screen reader that is an extension to the X server itself, (like Speakup
 > > is a set of patches to the kernel) would be a far better solution, as it could
 > > capture everything sent to the server and correctly translate it into humanly
 > > understandable speech output without relying on "accessibility messages" being
 > > sent from the client apps.
 > >
 > > Any thoughts on this would be welcome.
 > >
 > > Lorenzo
 > > - --
 > > - -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
 > > Version: 3.12
 > > GCS d- s:+ a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W++ N o K- w---
 > > O M V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5+ X+ R tv-- b++ DI-- D+
 > > G e* h---- r+++ y+++
 > > - ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
 > >
 > > iD8DBQFC5wJhG9IpekrhBfIRAuhgAKDNMp7ThoUKPYqiWC+u8WB3RS0oKQCgulck
 > > 2KEeJCAheJfd5oqbbUgiM5k=
 > > =lUXl
 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 > >
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Speakup mailing list
 > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
 > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
 > >
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Speakup mailing list
 > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
 > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici at ccs.covici.com