Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:12:12 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|