[ossrp-control] Re: Features So Far

David,
Once again, I agree with your approach. I am not a programmer, so don't pretend 
to understand the "how to" of what you are talking about. But I do think the 
bottom line needs to be the average end user, and 
that average end user does not know and will not learn anything to do with any 
sort of scripting language, nor should they. Keeping in mind that Joe Average 
sighted computer user does not need to be a 
technically savvy type to do tasks with a computer, it seems to me that the 
goal here  ought to be to make the blind user's experience as close to that of 
her sighted colleagues as possible in this respect. Due to 
the nature of the gui, I suspect we'll never get there. But the over arching 
goal ought to be to put as much power in the hands of the end user as possible 
while keeping the means of doing so as accessible as 
possible. Keeping the power tools separate and transparent to the end user, 
when such configuration tools are necessary, is an excellent idea. People who 
say that scripting is the best thing about JAWS are 
generally those who can script. What I'm pleading for here is a design approach 
that takes as much advantage as possible of nontechy user friendly methods of 
configurability, poisslbly including keyboard macros 
or wizzard-like interfaces to something more powerful behind the scenes.  And 
then, when that approach has run out and more is needed, do something like what 
David suggests below. But please don't start out 
with the idea that scripting needs to be the main means of configuration, 
because by doing so, you've locked out the great majority of users from being 
able to access the configurability of the application.
Mary


>Hi,

>Well, it would seem to me that the best way to achieve both requirements, is
>to not have scripting as a primary configuration function of the screen
>reader.  But instead, to create an SDK for the screen reader so that anyone
>who wants to add functionality, or customise how it works, can build
>relevant components to do that.  This has 3 main benefits:

>1. It fits in with the modular approach being recommended for the screen
>reader project.

>2. It obviates the need to invent a new scripting language, or try and
>incorporate one into the delivered product.

>3. As the project may be .NET based, anyone wishing to alter how the screen
>reader behaves will be able to use any of 32 different supported languages
>to do so.  The main objective of the SDK would then be to simply provide a
>means of exposing the object model, and then packaging the result in a way
>that is easily distributed to the users.

>Thus, end users would not need to even be aware of, or worse still
>confronted with, the idea of programming in order to perform more subtle or
>complex changes.  Since 99.99% of screen reader users never touch scripting,
>it shouldn't be a top priority in my humble opinion.  Since most scripting
>is done by comparative experts, and then distributed to a general user base,
>the above SDK idea wouldn't seem to conflict with that historical use at
>all.

>Having some way of programmatically altering how the screen reader behaves
>is definitely a good idea.  It just isn't necessary to expose that to the
>main users, but rather to have it available as a fall-back option for more
>experienced people.

>Just my twopence.

>All the best,

>David


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sina Bahram
>Sent: 28 April 2005 06:46
>To: ossrp-control@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ossrp-control] Re: Features So Far


>Hi David,
> 
>Those wizzards, dialogues, and macro recorders can simply implement the
>scripting language by providing a frontend to it.

>Take care,
>Sina

>________________________________

>From: ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Lant
>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:41 PM
>To: ossrp-control@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ossrp-control] Re: Features So Far


>Hi Jamal,
> 
>I think I've nailed my colours to that particular mast on another list.
><grin>  Personally, I would prefer avoiding scripting for the first line
>user configuration.  I would wholeheartedly endorse an SDK for developers to
>create add-ins for the screen reader down the line.  But I strongly feel
>that the configuration aspect of the screen reader should be as accessible,
>in the conceptual sense, to as many users as possible.  E.g. wizards,
>dialogs and macro recording style features would be easiest to learn.
> 

>All the best, 

>David 

>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jamal Mazrui
>       Sent: 27 April 2005 08:27
>       To: ossrp-control@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>       Subject: [ossrp-control] Re: Features So Far
>       
>       
>       One exercise I think is useful sometimes is to ask what is not
>desired.  Phrased another way, what features of present Windows screen
>readers do we think are not worth emulating?  I do not have ready answers to
>this question myself, but thought it was worth posing, as it can help draw
>boundaries around the scope of the project.
>        
>       Also, a topic which I do not recall being addressed specifically is
>whether the screen reader should support a scripting language for
>application configurations.  Is there a new scripting language for Longhorn,
>a successor to VBA?  If there is a built-in scripting language, then it may
>be the easiest language for the screen reader to host for configuration
>scripts.  
>        
>       Naturally, as much configuration as possible should be implemented
>without the need for scripting.  Some people may even prefer to avoid the
>scripting route entirely.  Thoughts anyone?
>        
>       Jamal
>        
>        
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ossrp-control-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Will Pearson
>       Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:02 PM
>       To: ossrp-control@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>       Subject: [ossrp-control] Features So Far
>       
>       
>       Hi,
>        
>       Here's my understanding of the important features that should be
>investigated for version 1.  It doesn't feature everything, but then
>there'll be versions after 1 in which more things can be brought in.
>        
>       Functional requirements:
>       * ability to read *windows* login screen
>       * ability to work with widely used types of applications, e.g. word
>processors, spreadsheets
>       * support for TTS engines that use the SAPI interface, as some of
>these provide clearer speech than current formant synthesisers
>       * ability to use mouse or equivalent functionality
>       * must work with User Interface Automation
>       * ability to update components over the web
>       * support for Braille devices
>        
>       Architectural requirements:
>       * based on .Net Framework/WinFX
>       * component based architecture
>        
>       * Research requirements
>       * investigate mechanisms to provide more efficient interaction
>mechanics
>       * investigate techniques to convey all the semantic information
>contained within a GUI through auditory and tactual/haptech transmission
>media.
>       * investigate means for clearer speech
>       * investigate perceptual psychology techniques for semantic
>conversion of web based graphical turing tests to text
>        
>       Project management requirements:
>       * risk analysis
>       * avoid scope creep
>       * requirements management
>       * beta 1 to be made publically available April 2006
>        
>       These are fairly high level requirements, and if anyone feels
>anything is being missed or would like to include anything, then say now.
>        
>       Will



>To post to the list, send a message to: ossrp-control@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To
>unsubscribe, send a message to: ossrp-control-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>and set the subject field of the message to "unsubscribe" (without the
>quotes

>To post to the list, send a message to:
>ossrp-control@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe, send a message to:
>ossrp-control-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>and set the subject field of the message to "unsubscribe" (without the quotes




To post to the list, send a message to:
ossrp-control@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, send a message to:
ossrp-control-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and set the subject field of the message to "unsubscribe" (without the quotes

Other related posts: