[DECtalk] decTalk on IOS with TestFlite beta app?

[jake mcmahanCharles Mcmahan]

     Don:

In reference to what you've stated about "seeing what we can get for 
free", yes I can agree that there are some in this world who think free 
is the most viable option.

However, as a blind man myself, I choose to be honest and up front.  If 
something isn't free, I either pay for it or if I can't, I use a demo or 
wait til I've got the money to purchase the product in question.

Another thing, you mentioned your device could speak in anyone's voice 
and can learn and evolve.  I've been a text to speech guy for a long 
time, and I do love speech synthesizers both old and new, and wouldn't 
hesitate to grab at a chance to make my own voice or explore options for 
doing it.  I do also like digging up old software to see how it works 
and play around with it, but I am just as interested in the new stuff 
that becomes available.

I for one do not find your comments irritating, just the conflict itself 
but that happens everywhere.  I would be interested in learning more 
about the product that learns and evolves and uses any voice model.

I did build a voice in 2011 which was a bit of a shot and miss if you 
will, but it did get used a bit for entertainment purposes. That being 
said, I do find your experience an asset and something that I can learn 
from.

Jake M.

On 11/16/2022 1:41 AM, Don wrote:
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk