Re: [OT] Anything simpler than emacspeak?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:02:16 -0500 (EST),
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 at 7:34am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
[...]
> >BTW, my understanding of emacspeak was that it required a
> >voice card -- hardware to actually generate the output. The
> >nice thing about festival is that it works with a standard
> >audio card.
>
> The current version of emacspeak, 17.0, supports the DECtalk
> software, which speaks through a standard sound card. That
> much I have working. Maybe I just have to bite the bullet and
> tell Dad he's going to have to learn emacs! Unfortunately,
> that might be enough of a barrier to dissuade him.
[...]
A free software voice synthesizer comes with debian: eflite. It's
an emacs enabled version of the flite program, which itself is
the "lite" version of festival.
I've read an article by a blind Linux user/developer (his name
seems to escape me ATM) which states that a command-line based
program is better for blind users than (most obviously) WIMP
programs like MS Word [1] or even "graphical" console programs
like emacs or mc, where feedback may be embedded in ways that
aren't accessible to the blind user. For instance, how does a
blind user hear the status bar?
Maybe you could arm your dad with a command-line web-browser,
editor (ed) and mail client (e.g. mailx for sending mail). These
can then be run in an emacs shell, with emacspeak doing the audio
feedback.
[1] windows, icons, menu and pointing device
Reply to: