[DECtalk] decTalk on IOS with TestFlite beta app?

[Don]

On 11/15/2022 9:18 PM, jake mcmahanCharles Mcmahan wrote:
> Normally I don't say much on these type things but I think this whole 
> thing is quite unnecessary.  We all use products and technology in our own way, 
> think in our own way, that's what makes the world what it is.  While I 
> personally use dectalk for some things, eloquence for others, I don't think 
> it's a bad idea for an old product to be invested in if proper permission is 
> given.

Old UNSUPPORTED products are fine -- if you are content to live with them
"as is".

I have two laser videodisc players from the 80's.  And, more than
100 titles.  For that era, it was a fabulous technology -- clear
picture, no wear from repeated viewings (like video tape), random
access, great audio (without resorting to HiFi VCRs), etc.

I've not used either of the players -- or any of the titles -- in
at least 25 years.  I've repurchased all of the titles in DVD format.
The quality is better.  They can take advantage of the wide screen
format now available on TVs.  They include subtitles and "bonus
features" (a laser video disc didn't support either of these).
And, I can copy them!  (laser video disc recorders were incredibly
expensive as was the media)

If I was content to live without these IMPROVEMENTS, I could stick
with the laser video players and titles accumulated, thus far.

But, I'd never see a "modern" movie released in that format!  I'd
be "stuck" living with that old technology -- and hoping the players
didn't break (I have the service manuals and the know-how to repair them
but likely can't purchase any of the "special parts" that they used),
the media didn't get irreparably scratched, etc.

And, there's no one I can even speak with to try to coerce repairs
or modifications/enhancements!

Investing time/effort/money in these old technologies is usually
a waste as you just end up farther and farther "behind" (the rest
of the world).  Instead, pressure people working on CURRENT solutions
to address your needs.  Tell them WHY it's important AND how those
efforts can make their product more valuable to folks OUTSIDE
your community!

[I could have designed my current project entirely with "visible displays"
and folks would have readily adapted to that use.  But, having designed
a speech interface gives it EXTRA appeal, even discounting its applicability
to visually impaired users.

In my case, I did this exactly backwards; I designed for the visually
impaired population and was convinced (by a friend) to, instead, make
the solution more general -- so SIGHTED users would want it, as well.
So, instead of making "hundreds", I can address a market of hundreds
of THOUSANDS!  And, there's no change to the design -- just a change
in how it is viewed!]

> Last I heard, Jake Gross did get the source from someone who actually 
> worked at the company, so really the legal thing is complicated and I wouldn't 
> do well exploring that one.

It's possible that "they" have exposed themselves to litigation,
depending on their "rights" to do so.

"Not my problem".

I have the source code for every product that I've developed, over
the years, even though those products technically belong to other
entities.  I'm careful NOT to disclose any of it as I have no desire
to expose myself to litigation!

[I have several "confidential" documents that are marked "do not
destroy" that I obtained via non-disclosure agreements.  The
companies are "gone"; can I destroy them, now??  I'll let my
heirs make that decision and deal with any consequences...]

> Point is though, we're all people who function in 
> different ways and have our own ideas. Lots of this stuff is very informative 
> and it's interesting to see what others think but I don't think it's necessary 
> for anyone to be hostile or get worked up when there really is no need for it.

Sorry, but its hard not to take offense at my integrity being maligned.

As I've said, developers interested in the "needs" of the non-mainstream
population are in short supply.  None of my colleagues -- all people that
I have known, personally, for decades -- are interested in ANY of the
assistive technology in the product designs THAT I AM GIFTING TO THEM (!).
They will strip the "special case" aspects of the designs out and just
develop products based on the "mainstream" feature sets.

<shrug>  Should I *not* gift them the designs because they don't
share my interest in addressing these needs?

> Both of you (Don and Karen) are very great  people, and I'm sure you contribute 
> in your own way.
> 
> No harm meant.

Perhaps its best I just unsubscribe as my views seem to conflict or "irritate"
others.  To be perfectly honest, I've not learned much from you folks.  I had
hoped to get input into what you found deficient in synthesizers (DECtalk,
in particular) and all I see is "how can I get this for free" or "why
doesn't someone make that for me".  Frankly, I got more constructive criticism
from the sighted folks that auditioned these technologies for me.  Maybe
because they were less accepting of its shortcomings?

<shrug>