guys,
its a lot more than just SDR software that needs to change. Its a lot of other related software (including radio programming software, interface design, etc.).The problem is, most software developers think of us as a very small and specialized market segmentt and are often loathe to make changes that would benefit a lot more than just the blind user. There is one project that would work for us (as it also has a terminal based program called rig control) called HamLib. I have used it to configure my kenwood radios here (HF and VHF/UHF) and there doesn't appear to be any reason why an SDR support module can't be created. In fact, since most SDR modules use the same command level inputs, it should be easy to create a module for HamLib that would allow us to control nearly all the functions of an SDR. the problem is finding a developer who knows this command set and is willing to contribute to the HamLib project. Some of the functionality of HRD base level commands can be used, and one can use an SDR like they would any other radio and not need the fancy waterfall display to see whats around. in fact, there is one kind of package that is already out there now that does support blind users of SDR: WebSDR. sure, its basic, but other features can be added (such as frames that display active values for signal type, bandwidth, s/n ratio, frequency and other particulars. Again, the problem is still finding a developer who understands the technology and also understands how blind people have to interact with it.

Now, I have tried to use the dm-88 program in HRD and found that no matter what I tried, the waterfall would steal focus from any other controls (in both jaws and NVDA), thus making the program for digital modes unusable. As someone else pointed out in this thread, it still comes down to numbers and how they can be represented. I know a few blind programmers, but, none of them are ham radio operators. now if someone were to finally develop an electro-conductive film that would be mounted on a flat screen, then we might be able to use that interface. such a film could mimic by induced electrical fields virtually any texture. Thus, we could feel the waterfall in much the same way as someone could see it. the only difference is that we would be seeing with our fingers. This in combination with some of the interface features that apple uses would allow us to quickly and easily control an SDR with very little additional education. There are 2 companies that I know of that are researching this type of film, but its been a few years and I haven't heard any progress toward a developed product.

-eric

On Mar 23, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Martin G. McCormick wrote:

> 	The real problem here is that totally graphical
> interfaces are the only common method that anybody has devised
> to control software defined radios. It's pointy-clicky, not
> because it has to be but because this is the best anybody has
> been able to come up with.
> 
> 	Ideally, one should have a choice between the GUI and
> text-based input.
> 
> 	Behind every SDR GUI are numbers that define band-width
> and amplitude among other things. The pretty picture is just a
> graphical representation of numbers that somehow, got set a
> certain way.
> 
> 	I noticed that in one of the descriptions of the use of
> a SDR, someone had to be running Microsoft Windows, an instance
> of JAWS and there was a refreshable Braille display thrown in to
> the mix because one kept loosing one's focus and the refreshable
> Braille kind of fixed that problem at least until somebody
> sneezes.
> 
> 	Let's see. That's about three-thousand US Dollars worth
> of access technology to get around the short-comings of the user
> interface.
> 
> 	There is a quote attributed to Albert Einstein that
> says, "Clever people solve problems. Wise people avoid problems."
> 
> 	It is encouraging that some have been able to make a
> SDR work in a very high-end environment. With a better user
> interface, Screen reader users running Windows, Linux and other
> unix-like operating systems such as MacOS could all benefit
> from the actual technology which is much cheaper than comparable
> traditional receiver or transmitter hardware.
> 
> 	I'll be excited when the user interface can be either
> water falls and pointy-clicky artifacts or parameter lists one
> can type in or feed in automatically. We'll actually have
> something to cheer about then.
> 
> Martin