W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-speech-api@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Confidence property

From: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:28:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHZf7RkMJdwg=nT4nVUmU+UcNuYp-qUc7RMuRdc-7_=Tcys1Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
Hi Milan,


> Summarizing previous discussion, we have:
>
> **
>
>   Pros:  1) Aids efficient application design, 2) minimizes deaf periods,
> 3) avoids a proliferation of semi-standard custom parameters.****
>
>   Cons: 1) Semantics of the value are not precisely defined, and 2) Novice
> users may not understand how confidence differs from maxnbest.****
>
> ** **
>
> My responses to the cons are: 1) Precedent from the speech industry, and
> 2) Thousands of VoiceXML developers do understand the difference and will
> balk at an API that does not accommodate their needs.
>

This was well debated in the earlier thread and it is clear that confidence
threshold semantics are tied to the recognizer (not portable). The benefit
of minimizing deaf periods is therefore again recognizer specific and not
portable. This is a well suited use case for custom parameters and I'd
suggest we start with that.

Thousands of VoiceXML developers do understand the difference and will balk
> at an API that does not accommodate their needs.


I hope we aren't trying to replicate VoiceXML in the browser. If it is
indeed a must have feature for web developers we'll be receiving requests
for it from them very soon, so it would be easy to discuss and add it in
future.
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 13:28:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 May 2012 13:28:56 GMT