[jawsscripts] Re: quick constants protocol question
- From: Soronel Haetir <soronel.haetir@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:00:20 -0800
I use underscore separators and have them speak.
On 7/14/10, Geoff Chapman <gch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ah. well, thank you don. I'm glad I'm not the only one then who feels this
> way. I guess If I got the script manager to not speak underlines, then I
> could more readily tolerate all capitalized words for constants, so long as
> I then separated each one by an underline. That isn't however, what I've
> seen done much. what I've seen is either they'll put c then underline then a
> mixed case nicely speaking word, or just an all caps bunch of words not
> separated by anything! which, as I say, connotes unintelligibility to
> screenReaders.
> And I guess I could safely assume the majority of anyone whose gunna be ever
> digging into my code, will be a screenReader user, so ... yeah. maybe I'll
> just abandon the sightling protocol on that one? and adopt the Mixed Case
> global variable protocol instead, for constants also, but with the small c
> at the front end of it.
>
> I guess I could adopt the allCaps constants, and separate each one by an
> underline, then turn off underline speaking in either the profile for Script
> manager punctuation, or using script manager dictionary to do that, but,
> hmmm, this could come back to bite me I guess, If I'm for example, needing
> to process strings in script manager which contain underline characters eh.
> that might not be such a good option. might just stick with my global
> protocol thought adoption instead. I could just detail this at the top of my
> jss file as like a, key, type thing I guess eh?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald Marang" <donald.marang@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:39 AM
> Subject: [jawsscripts] Re: quick constants protocol question
>
>
>>I agree with you Jefgf. That technique is clear to me. Make sure whatever
>> convention you follow that you are always consistent. As you have found
>> out, lack of consistency is very confusing! I still try to follow all
>> upper
>> case with underlines for constants. For the sighted, this clearly makes
>> constants obvious. For screen readers it just means unintelligible
>> pronounciation of the constant.
>>
>> Don Marang
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Soronel Haetir" <soronel.haetir@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:44 AM
>> To: <jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [jawsscripts] Re: quick constants protocol question
>>
>>> All caps separated with underscore is inherited from C where that is a
>>> fairly universal standard for most constant values. Not using the
>>> underscore in that situation is somewhat odd (though of course there
>>> are places you will see it).
>>>
>>> So long as you are consistent you won't get a lot of complaints no
>>> matter what you do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/12/10, Geoff Chapman <gch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> mighty longTime Scripters.
>>>> In my brief forays into this crazy scripting world, for which I'm
>>>> feeling
>>>> less and less fitted as the days go on, but that's another story,
>>>> I've found that sometimes, constants are written like this:
>>>> c_myFavoriteFunkyThing
>>>>
>>>> presumably the C, up front, indicating the thing is a constant.
>>>> Yet other times, I've seen this other horrible standard going on, where
>>>> people will write the whole thing in upperCase, which to my mind is
>>>> simply
>>>> horrid! so far as firstPass comprehension Jaws speech output is
>>>> concerned,
>>>> like this:
>>>>
>>>> MYFAVORITEFUNKYTHING
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which I PERSONALLY abhor.
>>>>
>>>> TO ADD TO MY DISCUSSION,
>>>> I've seen globals written sometimes with an underline separating the
>>>> small g
>>>> from the rest of the global definition, BUT other times, quite happily
>>>> just
>>>> small G for global, small letter denoting global type, i.e. s for
>>>> string,
>>>> i
>>>> for integer etc, then a mixed case Delineated global name. like this:
>>>>
>>>> giTrunkAndTransfer
>>>>
>>>> which I like infinitely better!
>>>>
>>>> So, what I wanna know is, how horrifically renegade of me would it be,
>>>> if
>>>> I
>>>> didn't want to follow either of these seemingly standard constant
>>>> definition
>>>> protocols, and do them more like global ones? such that we avoid Jaws
>>>> having
>>>> to waste precious time saying "underline,", but we still hear the c for
>>>> constant, separately spoken before the mixed case Constant def? like
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> cMyFavoriteFunkyThing
>>>>
>>>> how unacceptable would such an adoption be for me to make? and, why oh
>>>> why,
>>>> didn't everyone just adopt this one in the first place? since it's how
>>>> globals seem to be quite happily defined? so there was already a good
>>>> precedent there?
>>>>
>>>> I simply do dislike trying to work out what constants are, when they're
>>>> all
>>>> written in uppercase, and surely other speech users must've chafed under
>>>> this restriction as well?
>>>>
>>>> thanks for any thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> oh, please do be gentle in your remonstrances if any are due me for
>>>> these
>>>> thoughts/desires eh.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> geoff c.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________�
>>>>
>>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>>> http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Soronel Haetir
>>> soronel.haetir@xxxxxxxxx
>>> __________�
>>>
>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>> http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
>>>
>> __________�
>>
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
>>
>
> __________�
>
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
>
>
--
Soronel Haetir
soronel.haetir@xxxxxxxxx
__________�
View the list's information and change your settings at
http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
Other related posts: