[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

Other related posts: