[ossrp-control] Re: Features So Far

David,
I would add my voice to yours with regard to avoiding the use of a scripting 
language for user-level configuration if at all possible. If it can be shown 
that addition of such a language will add serious power to the 
screen reader which can't be done in any other more user friendly way, then I 
could have my mind changed on this topic. However, generally speaking, I think 
the scripting language is one of the least attractive 
points about the most widely used screen reader today. Its out of reach for the 
great majority of end users. And when versions change, scripts often break, 
causing end users to be stuck until they can get 
somebody to come and figure out what has changed to cause the script to break. 
And that in turn can be a time waster and very costly, not to mention that the 
after market scripting is itself an added cost. I am 
definitely for keeping the user interface and interactions as simple as 
possible, while keeping in mind that configurability may be necessary in some 
instances to assist in making ill behaved applications usable, or 
desirable in others, to allow users to customize output or streamline input. 
But I would urge caution against making the thing overly complex or dependent 
on specialized knowledge on the part of the end user.
Mary Otten
senior tester
Tecaccess


--Original Message Text---
From: David Lant
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:40:59 +0100

Message 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: