On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hello, > > Yet another person on the NVDA list wanted to re-implement a driver for > some braille device because he doesn't want to have to run both brltty > and nvda at the same time.
Erm... Why? > Of course, it's a better thing to use the brlapi facility as this > permits to run several readers, dedicated applications, etc. but for > the casual user this seems superfluous considering the difficulty of > installing both brltty and nvda (yes, I believe we got to a very simple > way to achieve that, but two applications is still too much for casual > users). I don't buy that for a minute. Windows has plenty of installer kits to chose from, making all the underlying programs/services/components/whatnot bundled and installed together with no distinction unless the user really wants to dig. Most games will package DirectX and install it unless there is already a newer version installed already for example. Also, if NVDA relies on BRLTTY to work properly then it should ensure BRLTTY is running and start it otherwise, all by itself. This is not rocket science. > As a result, I yet more and more believe that brltty should export its > drivers through a library too, even with an simple interface similar > to libbrlapi/libbraille. Are they thinking the same about the Windows speech API? > Else I fear dispersion of hardware support > efforts. If the effort needed to make proper integration of BRLTTY/BRLAPI for a better NVDA user experience is greater than plain driver duplication, then I'm afraid that making a proper library interface would be an even greater effort (except that the effort is now shifted to BRLTTY developers instead). > What do people think? I think this is the wrong solution for a valid issue. Nicolas _______________________________________________ This message was sent via the BRLTTY mailing list. To post a message, send an e-mail to: [email protected] For general information, go to: http://mielke.cc/mailman/listinfo/brltty
