[brailleblaster] Re: Next steps
- From: "Vic Beckley" <vic.beckley3@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:19:34 -0400
Keith,
The last time I tried embossing from within BB, it didn't work. Is that
working now?
Best regards from Ohio,
Vic
From: brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Creasy
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 1:58 PM
To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [brailleblaster] Next steps
All.
I am anxious to hear what others think but let me share what I believe our
next big step in development should be. Right now it is easy to open an XML
file and one can even edit the content in the text view. Some important
things that one can't do yet are:
1. Start a new document and immediately begin adding content. You can
actually enter text into the text view now but it isn't being added in a
valid way to the XML and you do not get any braille. We need to finish out
the code that creates a new document and adds at least one text element
where a user can enter new text, get braille, and save it back to a valid
UTD XML document.
2. One cannot yet add braille to an existing document. One of the first
things we are going to encounter, and we'll soon know if I'm right, is that
users are going to want to add braille-specific information to the document.
Transcriber's notes, acknowledgements, braille publication info, and such.
3. Related to the previous point, users are going to want to make
corrections to the braille without effecting the print and even make
corrections that can't be made in the print.
4. Table of Contents needs to be implemented. For the sake of simplicity and
to speed this up I'd like to propose that we use the current LibLouisUTDML
way of generating a braille TOC. Users would just move to the place in the
document, perhaps in the tree view, and select that as the location of the
TOC. A locked braille element would then be added with the braille TOC
generated using the headings. I don't think this is going to be 100%
reliable in the long term but it might work better than I expect and there's
no reason to make it more complicated until we know.
Regards,
Keith
Other related posts:
