W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Multimodal Interaction WG questions for WebApps (especially WebAPI)

From: <Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:07:33 +0200
Message-ID: <98B37F7D0484184B9DBDCC44B6C8EDA303CE9054@S4DE9JSAAID.ost.t-com.de>
To: <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Cc: <public-webapps@w3.org>, <w3c-mmi-wg@w3.org>
Olli,

thanks for pointing this out. The Multimodal WG has looked into whats
available on WebSockets and indeed it seems to be a good candidate to be
used as a transport mechanic for distributed multimodal applications.  

-- Ingmar. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olli Pettay [mailto:Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: Deborah Dahl
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; 'Kazuyuki Ashimura'
> Subject: Re: Multimodal Interaction WG questions for WebApps 
> (especially WebAPI)
> 
> On 9/24/09 4:51 PM, Deborah Dahl wrote:
> > Hello WebApps WG,
> >
> > The Multimodal Interaction Working Group is working on 
> specifications
> > that will support distributed applications that include inputs from
> > different modalities, such as speech, graphics and handwriting. We
> > believe there's some applicability of specific WebAPI specs such
> > as XMLHttpRequest and Server-sent Events to our use cases and we're
> > hoping to get some comments/feedback/suggestions from you.
> >
> > Here's a brief overview of how Multimodal Interaction and WebAPI
> > specs might interact.
> >
> > The Multimodal Architecture [1] is a loosely coupled 
> architecture for
> > multimodal user interfaces, which allows for co-resident 
> and distributed
> > implementations. The aim of this design is to provide a 
> general and flexible
> > framework providing interoperability among 
> modality-specific components from
> > different vendors - for example, speech recognition from 
> one vendor and
> > handwriting recognition from another. This framework 
> focuses on providing a
> > general means for allowing these components to communicate 
> with each other,
> > plus basic infrastructure for application control and 
> platform services.
> >
> > The basic components of an application conforming to the Multimodal
> > Architecture are (1) a set of components which provide 
> modality-related
> > services, such as GUI interaction, speech recognition and 
> handwriting
> > recognition, as well as more specialized modalities such as 
> biometric input,
> > and (2) an Interaction Manager which coordinates inputs 
> from different
> > modalities with the goal of providing a seamless and well-integrated
> > multimodal user experience. One use case of particular interest is a
> > distributed one, in which a server-based Interaction 
> Manager (using, for
> > example SCXML [2]) controls a GUI component based on a 
> (mobile or desktop)
> > web browser, along with a distributed speech recognition component.
> > "Authoring Applications for the Multimodal Architecture" 
> [3] describes this
> > type of an application in more detail. If, for example, 
> speech recognition
> > is distributed, the Interaction Manager receives results 
> from the recognizer
> > and will need to inform the browser of a spoken user input 
> so that the
> > graphical user interface can reflect that information. For 
> example, the user
> > might say "November 2, 2009" and that information would be 
> displayed in a
> > text field in the browser. However, this requires that the 
> server be able to
> > send an event to the browser to tell it to update the 
> display. Current
> > implementations do this by having the brower poll for the server for
> > possible updates on a frequent basis, but we believe that a 
> better approach
> > would be for the browser to actually be able to receive 
> events from the
> > server.
> > So our main question is, what mechanisms are or will be available to
> > support efficient communication among distributed components (for
> > example, speech recognizers, interaction managers, and web browsers)
> > that interact to create a multimodal application,(hence our interest
> > in server-sent events and XMLHttpRequest)?
> 
> I believe WebSockets could work a lot better than XHR or server-sent 
> events. IM would be a WebSocket server and it would have 
> bi-directional
> connection to modality components.
> 
> -Olli
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > [1] MMI Architecture: http://www.w3.org/TR/mmi-arch/
> > [2] SCXML: http://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/
> > [3] MMI Example: http://www.w3.org/TR/mmi-auth/
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Debbie Dahl
> > MMIWG Chair
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 14:09:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:34 GMT