W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > December 2010

RE: R13. Web application author should have ability to customize speech recognition graphical user interface

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:59:02 -0500
To: "'Bjorn Bringert'" <bringert@google.com>, "'Michael Bodell'" <mbodell@microsoft.com>
Cc: <Olli@pettay.fi>, "'Dan Burnett'" <dburnett@voxeo.com>, <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009001cb97b1$9eb70070$dc250150$@conversational-technologies.com>
Here's a possible tweak on this one. 

"Web apps should be able to customize all aspects of the user interface for speech recognition, except that end users must have a clear indication whenever the microphone is listening to the user".

The reason I suggest this is that I think it's more specific and more consistent with R32 "R32. End users need a clear indication whenever microphone is listening to the user", in not calling out the specific aspects of the user interface (i.e. security and privacy) where it should not be customizable. 

On the other hand, my suggestion wouldn’t cover any possible cases where security and privacy can be compromised in the user interface of a speech app by something other than surreptitious recording, if there are any, so we might need some combination of the wordings from both proposals.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjorn Bringert
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:26 AM
> To: Michael Bodell
> Cc: Olli@pettay.fi; Dan Burnett; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: R13. Web application author should have ability to customize
> speech recognition graphical user interface
> 
> I agree, I was trying to think of something along those lines too.
> Here's an alternative but pretty much equivalent wording, the only
> real change is dropping "graphical":
> 
> "Web apps should be able to customize all aspects of the user
> interface for speech recognition, except for those aspects required
> for security and privacy."
> 
> /Bjorn
> 
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Michael Bodell <mbodell@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > I think there is something here that is missing if we just drop it which is that
> the graphical user interface for the speech recognition may be different for
> different web applications even in the same user agent and that we should
> not, where possible, bake in one user interface as much as possible.  Maybe
> a requirement that says something like "Web application authors should
> have no limits to their ability to customize the graphical user interface for
> speech recognition, except for those limitations which are necessary for
> security reasons"?  A better wording is likely possible, but I think that is the
> idea we should be capturing.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-
> htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjorn Bringert
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:38 AM
> > To: Olli@pettay.fi
> > Cc: Dan Burnett; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: R13. Web application author should have ability to customize
> speech recognition graphical user interface
> >
> > As Olli says, this requirement can't be fully compatible with our
> requirements that the user must be notified when recording occurs. If the
> web app could customize everything about the recognition UI, it could make
> the notification invisible.
> >
> > /Bjorn
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
> wrote:
> >> Because of possible security reasons, some customization may not be
> >> possible, some may.
> >> In other words, web app author must not be able to control everything
> >> in the speech GUI.
> >>
> >> R13 has two parts. One is the "include a clickable graphic to invoke
> >> speech recognition", the other one is "indicate the progress of the
> >> recognition through various states".
> >> It is the first one which *may* need to be limited a bit.
> >> And the latter one is already implicitly handled in the requirement
> >> for different kinds of events.
> >>
> >> -Olli
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/08/2010 12:39 PM, Dan Burnett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Group,
> >>>
> >>> This is the next of the requirements to discuss and prioritize based
> >>> on our ranking approach [1].
> >>>
> >>> This email is the beginning of a thread for questions, discussion,
> >>> and opinions regarding our first draft of Requirement 13 [2].
> >>>
> >>> Please discuss via email as we agreed at the Lyon f2f meeting.
> >>> Outstanding points of contention will be discussed live at an
> >>> upcoming teleconference.
> >>>
> >>> -- dan
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Oct/0024
> >>> .html
> >>> [2]
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Oct/att-
> >>> 0001/speech.html#r13
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bjorn Bringert
> > Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
> Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Bjorn Bringert
> Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
> Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
> Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 14:59:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 December 2010 14:59:37 GMT