Re: skepticism about generic access solutions (was: issues with XWindow)

["L. C. Robinson" <lcr cyberhighway net>]

Now that is very impressive!

Thanks for the info,  LCR

On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Jason White wrote:

> L. C. Robinson writes:

>  > By "non-textual aspects" I am guessing that you mean things
>  > like underlining, font changes, parens, brackets, color
>  > changes, and the like?  Things that are part of text mode
>  > apps, but need auditory interpretation, apart from words?
> 
> While it is true that there are usually colour or font changes,
> parentheses, indentations, etc., which provide a visual
> manifestation of the distinctions which Emacspeak represents with
> different speech characteristics, this need not be the case. For
> example, when used with the Emacs/W3 web browser, Emacspeak
> relies on the application of an aural style sheet directly to the
> markup, instead of trying to interpret any visual representation
> that might (or might not) exist; the on-screen formatting is
> controlled by a separate style sheet. This can not be achieved
> with a standard text-mode interface and a screen reader. It
> requires a higher level of interaction with the style sheet and
> data.

-- 
L. C. Robinson
reply to lcr cyberhighway net

People buy MicroShaft for compatibility, but get incompatibility and
instability instead.  This is award winning "innovation".  Find
out how MS holds your data hostage with "The *Lens*"; see
"CyberSnare" at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html