Sounds good Ron, I mainly use WindowEyes, but have JAWS 11,or is it 12, not 
sure.  Should be around this weekend.  73 and thanks, Jim WA6EKS


-----Original Message----- 
From: Ron Miller
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PSR Edit

Hi Jim,
Though I have addressed some of this in my post to the list, maybe we can
get together on SKYPE, since I don't yet have antennas up. Perhaps on a
weekend?

Ron Miller


-----Original Message-----
From: For blind ham radio operators [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Jim Gammon
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PSR Edit

Ron, I would also like to know how you are using PSR Edit.  I have only
poked around a bit with it but mainly use it to upload files sent from a
friend.  Jim WA6EKS

> ----- Original Message -----
>From: Ron Miller <[log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date sent: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:27:13 -0400
>Subject: Re: accessible scanners

>Hi  ,
>Yes it does decode P25.

>Also, Jim, I am most definitely not saying that we should
discourage Whistle=
>r from designing accessibility features into their scanner
receivers.  Quite t=
>he contrary, I am all for it.  In fact, I had begun a dialog with
the folks a=
>t GRE America on this very subject.

>The intent of my post was simply to respond to a previous message
about Whis=
>tler's current scanner line and to say that I'm successfully
using the PSR-5=
>00 along with PSREdit and the Whistler version of this scanner
should be equ=
>ally usable.

>BTW, Russ, if we can work out a time, I would be glad to chat
with you about=
> how I use PSREdit.

>73,

>Ron Miller
>N6MSA

>Ron Miller

>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Russ Kiehne <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>>=20
>> Does the psr500 do p25?
>>=20
>>> On 8/13/2014 8:42 PM, Jim Gammon wrote:
>>> Ron, how do you deal with the scanner when the display says nothing
>>> enabled? I really think they could do a better job, even with the
>>> beeps.  I have owned a PSR500 scanner since 2010, and, while I can
>>> work it, I have never figured out how to use PSR
Edit
>>> to program it, even when a friend sends me files of frequencies
I
>>> want.  I can upload that file which works great, and can set the
>>>scanner on a given talk group, but there is much that I wish I  could
>>>do.  Given that Whistler is developing new scanners, why  should we
>>>discourage them from making them more accessible then  they are which
>>>is not much at all in my opinion.  Jim WA6EKS
>>>=20
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Ron Miller <[log in to unmask]
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Date sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:34:26 -0400
>>>> Subject: Re: accessible scanners
>>>=20
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Check out the Whistler models available.  I own and very
>>> successfully use the
>>>> GRE PSR-500, the original version of the current Whistler
>>> handheld.  I use
>>>> the PSR500 Edit software and the scanner's included USB cable.
I
>>> can program
>>>> the scanner and configure it exactly the way I want it to be.  I
>>> can then use
>>>> it very well in the field.  I find it very accessible, even
>>> though it does
>>>> not have speech output.  Speech is not the only way to
>>> successfully use a
>>>> piece of comm.  gear, so don't let the lack of speech detour
you.
>>>=20
>>>> 73
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> Ron Miller
>>>=20
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: For blind ham radio operators
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> On Behalf Of Matthew Chao
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:29 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: accessible scanners
>>>=20
>>>> Hi, Martin.  I'm looking for an accessible scanner; any current
>>> ideas?  And
>>>> what about using USB interfaces instead of serial ones, as many
>>> systems no
>>>> longer come with serial ports, and the USB-TO-serial adapters
can
>>> be a
>>>> little sketcy.--Matt, N1IBB.
>>>=20
>>>> At 10:14 AM 8/13/2014, you wrote:
>>>>>         Another useful feature is when one can communicate with
>>> a
>>>>> scanner or transceiver via serial interface.  I have two Uniden
>>>>> scanners.  One is now eleven years old and has a rather turse
>>> command
>>>>> set that one can access via a terminal program much the way you
>>> can
>>>>> access one of the old telephone dial-up modems.  All the
>>> characters must
>>>>> be upper case and all the replies are also in upper case but you
>>> can
>>>>> read the display, setup trunking systems, etc.  The only problem
>>> is that
>>>>> the Motorola SmartZone trunking is now unusable since the new
>>> rebanded
>>>>> frequency plans can not be fed in to the scanner as a flash
>>> upgrade
>>>>> since the
>>>>> bc780 does not have that capability.
>>>>>         It is, however, accessible since the command set and
>>> responses
>>>>> are all plain ASCII text.
>>>>>         That sort of access is much appreciated.  I also have
>>> another
>>>>> Uniden which was made around 2008.  It does P25 and the new
>>> rebanded
>>>>> Motorola trunking just fine.
>>>>>         It also has an ASCII command set and is potentially
>>> totally
>>>>> accessible but one needs to either be running one of the Windows
>>>>> programs that talk to your scanner or you must be willing to
>>> write your
>>>>> own communications program in C or perl.  I am a Linux user so
>>> that is
>>>>> kind of par for the course.
>>>>>         For the BCD996 and the BCD396, the commands and
>>> responses are
>>>>> still ASCII but they use CSV or Comma-Separated Variable
strings.
>>> These
>>>>> are sometimes hugely long lines of text in which each field is
>>>>> separated from it's neighbors by a , so a string for input or
>>> output
>>>>> might look like 1,01453500,1,,,3,2,7,K5SRC Stillwater
>>> Repeater,14,0,9
>>>>>         That is not a valid entry anywhere, but it is an example
>>> of
>>>>> what a CSV string looks like.  You see them all the time in
>>> business
>>>>> applications that may be used with spread sheets and tables.
>>>>>         One of my next home projects is to take the C program I
>>> wrote
>>>>> for the BCD996 and try to re-do it in perl as I may get it to do
>>> more
>>>>> than it presently does.
>>>>>         I would sure like to see more radios that have some sort
>>> of
>>>>> electronic input and output like the Kenwoods and several
others.
>>> To
>>>>> me, that is almost as good as having speech boards in the radio
>>> which,
>>>>> of course, is the holy grail but may not have as much mass
appeal
>>> as
>>>>> being able to interface with a serial port on a computer or
maybe
>>> a web
>>>>> interface.
>>>>>         Let's hope that this period of totally inaccessible
>>> technology
>>>>> is ending and we just might be able to really use some of this
>>> stuff
>>>>> again.
>>>>>         I remember the first truly inaccessible piece of amateur
>>> radio
>>>>> gear I encountered.  It was in the mid seventies and was a
>>> two-meter
>>>>> transceiver that had an Up and Down button pair for frequency,
no
>>>>> direct entry and no way to get to a known state except for that
>>> stupid
>>>>> little LED display.  If you could even get it to start at
144.000
>>> MHZ,
>>>>> do you really want to count in 5 KHZ steps up to say, 147.925
and
>>> hope
>>>>> there were no key bounces or missed presses?
>>>>>         The guy in the store said, I don't think there is any
>>> way you
>>>>> can use that and he was absolutely right.  Don't you just hate
>>> that?
>>>=20
>>>>> 73 Martin McCormick WB5AGZ
>>>=20
>>>>> Jim Gammon writes:
>>>>>>     John, I have been corresponding with the Whistler group
>>>>>> regarding there trunked scanners.  Thought you would like to
>>> read
>>>>>> the latest.  Jim
>>> .
>>>=20