From: Bluechip <csbluechip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:25:44 +0000

Yes, I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that a lexicographical method
is a good choice.

FWIW. It get's my vote.

>There has been several wantings, as to have different things spoken on the
>RB jukeboxes. Among other things, accented characters, menu items etc. One
>of the problems, as far as I get it, is that we are close to run out of
>space, when it comes to the voice files.
>
>Some years ago, I constructed a few different softwares, that was to
>handle lexical information. The way the voice ui is build up in RB, each
>menu item has to be saved in its full; am I correct. This means that one
>spot in the voice table has to hold the voiced information of RECORDING
>SCREEN, and another position the information RECORDING SETTINGS, yet
>another GENERAL SETTINGS. This way the voiced words of RECORDING, and
>SETTINGS, has to be repeated several times, and so takes up quite much space.
>
>A more space sufficient way to build up lexical file structures, is to
>save all words (one by one) in a table, and then let each spoken phrase
>consist of several pointers. This means a lot of space savings. Even if we
>were to have 32bit (4 byte) pointers, and a certain menu item was to have
>five words spoken, this would only mean 20bytes.
>
>How about if every word had its own mp3-file: RECORDING.MP3, SETTINGS.MP3,
>GENERAL.MP3, PLAYBACK.MP3 ETC. aND THEN WE HAD AN ARRAY, WHERE WE HAD
>POINTERS TO THE DIFFERENT WORDS, THAT WERE TO BE SPOKEN AT EACH ITEM.
>
>ok, YOU GUYS, i KNOW i MAY BE THINKING TOTALLY NEW HERE! bUT, i ALSO
>THINK, THAT IT MAY BE AN IDEA TO LOOK INTO WAYS TO ENSURE THAT WE WILL
>HAVE THE VOICE UI WORKING IN THE FUTURE; EVEN IF WE CONTINUE TO PUT MORE
>FEATURES INTO THIS WONDERFUL SOFTWARE. sO, DON'T TAKE THIS AS ANYTHING BUT
>A SUGGESTION, AND SEE WHAT WE CAN GET OUT OF IT...
Received on 2005-12-31