- From: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:29:31 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: public-rqtf@w3.org
Hi Janina, On 09/07/2019 10:18, Janina Sajka wrote: > Reading this again this early morning, I see at least one glaring > grammatical error. > > [...] Boo. Fixed. I've added the use case text to our doc, and made some editorial changes. I hope this makes the 'reason why' clearer, as I felt in your draft the reader may have to dig a little to understand why the IRC style is preferred, so I made it clearer that there is a potentially substantial problem with the translation of TTS into intelligible speech if it isn't 'scheduled' properly. [1] With this in mind I also added the word 'scheduling' as I think this neatly describes one of the potential issues with an 'RTT only UI' for a blind user. So the new initial paragraph now reads: "Blind users who rely on text to speech (TTS) to interact with their computers and smart devices require the traditional Internet Relay Chat (IRC) style interface. This must be preserved as a configuration option in agents that implement WebRTC as opposed to having only the Real Time Text (RTT) type interface favoured by users who are deaf or hearing impaired. This is because TTS cannot reasonably translate text into comprehensible speech unless the characters to be pronounced are scheduled and transmitted in close timing to one another." I also named the user case 'Internet Relay Chat Style Interface required for Blind Users' just to make it clear. I hope this works for you, comments etc welcome! [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Accessible_RTC_Use_Cases#Internet_Relay_Chat_Style_Interface_required_for_Blind_Users Thanks Josh -- Emerging Web Technology Specialist/A11y (WAI/W3C)
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2019 11:28:29 UTC