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: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:31:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4D01044E.9050508@helsinki.fi>
To: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
CC: "'Bjorn Bringert'" <bringert@google.com>, "'Michael Bodell'" <mbodell@microsoft.com>, "'Dan Burnett'" <dburnett@voxeo.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
On 12/09/2010 06:18 PM, Deborah Dahl wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Olli Pettay Sent: Thursday, December
>> 09, 2010 10:09 AM To: Deborah Dahl Cc: 'Bjorn Bringert'; 'Michael
>> Bodell'; 'Dan Burnett'; public-xg- htmlspeech@w3.org Subject: Re:
>> R13. Web application author should have ability to customize speech
>> recognition graphical user interface
>>
>> On 12/09/2010 04:59 PM, Deborah Dahl wrote:
>>> 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 tindication 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.
>>
>> Yeah, unfortunately "indication whenever the microphone is
>> listening" is not enough. UAs must handle for example clickjacking
>> somehow, so I assume that the domain which is trying to use speech
>> services must be exposed to user.
>>
>>
>> -Olli
>>
> Good point. Do you think it's possible to enumerate the cases where
> security and privacy could potentially be compromised by changes in
> the speech app UI?
I doubt that. New kinds of security issues are found pretty often.


> So far it seems that the user must know about
> recording and the user must know about the domain which is trying to
> use speech services. If there are others, and we can enumerate them,
> then we should do so, but if there isn't a finite list of
> possibilities the reference to "those aspects required for security
> and privacy" is too vague.

Since different kinds of UAs may have different kinds of security
and privacy problems, it would be very difficult to list them all.
I think the requirement just need to be clear that in case of
security or privacy issue, UA may (or must?) override web app specified
UI.

-Olli

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> -----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 16:32:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:32:02 GMT