Hi,
why not try danceing dots? unfortunately there are no scripts for it yet or
sets for it yet.
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: jkenn337
----- Original Message -----
From: "Orlando Enrique Fiol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chuck Adkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Aaron Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: new manual?
At 11:56 PM 7/4/2008, Chuck Adkins wrote:
>It's hard to believe this thread. If GW as was stated hasn't made all
>this
>scripting information available and has as mentioned been keeping it
>secret,
>where did everyone learn the information to create them in the first
>place?
I don't understand how my comments can get so easily blown out of
proportion. I never accused GWMicro of not putting up support materials on
Script Central. In fact, I've spent the past day perusing scripting
tutorials thanks to the resources provided on Script Central. I should
however point out that these resources were not always available there and
it was intimidating to sort through unverified internet tutorials with
mere google searches. Many GWMicro staffers urged me to "wait like
everyone else for the beta to be released" when I tried to jump the gun by
learning how to script. I was simply unaware of where exactly the
necessary documentation resided. Not to excuse my carelessness, but I'm
starting grad school in two months, am trying to find a music notation
solution to work with Window-eyes and have to figure out the least tedious
way to relabel all the Sound Forge plugin controls whose labels
disappeared when the beta wreaked havoc with the .we file containing those
field labels. Like many long-time Window-eyes users, scripting could not
have come soon enough. There will always be a differentiation between
blind users of other people's scripts and people who feel comfortable
taking the plunge into scripting. There is also a crucial distinction to
be made between people with previous programming knowledge and eager users
with pressing needs for scripts who can neither wait for scripts to be
written nor pay someone directly to write them. I fall into this last
category. Thus far, reading various tutorials, I'm having trouble
connecting the kinds of sample situations discussed with the kinds of
tasks I'd typically want to script for Window-eyes. These tutorials are
talking about everything from HTML document text to random number
generators. I want to know how to make Window-eyes speak certain items
present on the screen but not available through standard Windows controls,
or produce custom phrases for Window-eyes to speak when it encounters
visual symbols. Thus far, the tutorials I've been reading have not
provided me these kinds of answers. I'm slowly slogging through the code
in the default global scripts, but am having trouble figuring out what
everything means.
>All one need do is look a script central and you can see that very few of
>the scripts have been created by GW. Get it? I say again, very few of the
>scripts have been created by GW Micro.
Those scripters did not learn to script exclusively using online tutorials
like Sesame Script, for example. Many of them have studied programming and
scripting languages in college or have programmed for years as part of
their work. In other words, they have the advantage of years of previous
experience that they could unleash at the drop of a hat once scripting was
introduced into Window-eyes.
>I wish some of the needless GW bashing could be done off list. How anyone
>could accuse GW of being anything but above board with anything
>concerning
>7.0 is way beyond me.
I don't understand why you insist on these black and white constructs:
either one supports every single GWMicro policy and decision, or one gets
accused of being a GWMicro basher. In case you haven't noticed, GWMicro
provides blind users a service for which they pay. Many of us pay for each
Window-eyes upgrade out of pocket without any kind of state or federal
support. If I'm shelling out my hard earned money for a product, you can
bet that as an informed consumer, I'm going to raise concerns when
applicable. In the case of the manual, I was reminded of the help file
containing scripting information. I must have overlooked that in reading
too fast through the readme. However, as a Window-eyes user, I reserve the
right to express my opinions about what I see as a potentially dangerous
knowledge gap between those who already know how to script and those who
wish to learn. There are dozens of scripting related books on Amazon.com.
Only the wealthiest people could afford to buy them all in hopes of
finding them useful. At the moment, I cannot afford to take scripting
classes at a university and will probably have such a heavy course load in
the fall that it will be difficult to work in formal scripting study,
which is why I wanted to get a jump on scripting before the beta came out.
If a company ties into com scripting, I feel that consumers have a right
to request as much beginner support as possible, given the nature of what
most of us are trying to do with Window-eyes. To be clear, no one thus far
has written a script without previous programming background, relying
exclusively on the internet tutorials found through Google searches or on
Script Central. Let's use an analogy here. In my graduate studies, there
will be course work, language and exam requirements for earning a PHD. The
exams will be composed of specific materials I can study in order to pass.
The course work will consist of readings and papers written about those
readings that will eventually add up to a PHD. When my doctoral work
actually begins, I'll have an advisor who will help orient me toward the
best research methods and field work procedures. Why will I trust that a
PHD lies at the end of all these methods and requirements? Because others
have started from the same position as me and earned their PHD's. It then
logically follows that if I follow the trajectory of scholarship and meet
its standards, I'll earn my degree just like everyone else. Applying the
analogy to this situation, imagine if a university said they'd hire me as
a professor if I possessed a doctorate and I then began scrambling around
to figure out how to earn one. Imagine if that same university said that
it doesn't actually produce PHD scholars from the ground up, but provides
links to tutorials in case people want to earn their degrees at home.
Wouldn't I have the right to question whether those tutorials have
actually produced the result I desire? Wouldn't it be reasonable to
question whether one can learn scripting from the ground up using those
tutorials? Why is it GW bashing to question the efficacy of a proposed
system?
Orlando
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database:
270.4.5/1536 - Release Date: 7/5/2008 10:15 AM
If you reply to this message it will be delivered to the original
sender only. If your reply would benefit others on the list and
your message is related to GW Micro, then please consider sending
your message to [email protected] so the entire list will receive it.
All GW-Info messages are archived at http://www.gwmicro.com/gwinfo, and
can be searched through and sorted using the search
form at the bottom of the page.
If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include leave gw-info in the body of the message.
If you reply to this message it will be delivered to the original
sender only. If your reply would benefit others on the list and
your message is related to GW Micro, then please consider sending
your message to [email protected] so the entire list will receive it.
All GW-Info messages are archived at http://www.gwmicro.com/gwinfo, and can be
searched through and sorted using the search
form at the bottom of the page.
If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include leave gw-info in the body
of the message.
