Re: Offline webapps and speech UI

Great, glad we're all in agreement then - would be nice to add the language
you suggest below...


> From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:25:27 +0100
> To: Andy Mauro <Andy.Mauro@nuance.com>
> Cc: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>, <Olli@pettay.fi>,
> <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Offline webapps and speech UI
> 
> Dropping R31 was part of the consensus from the f2f session yesterday
> around replacing the requirements related to choosing the speech
> service implementation. See
> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-htmlspeech-minutes.html for the full
> minutes. The gist of it is to replace a number of existing
> requirements (R16, R15, R31, R22, R1 (some parts of the text should be
> kept), R15) with something like the following:
> 
> 1. Browser must provide default
> 2. Web apps should be able to request speech service different from default
> 3. User agent (browser) can refuse to use requested speech service
> 4. If browser refuses, it must inform the web app
> 5. If browser uses speech services other than the default one, it must
> inform the user which one(s) it is using..
> 
> We could perhaps add some language to 3. to make it clear that
> refusing to use the requested service is not intended to be the
> default behavior.
> 
> /Bjorn
> 
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Andy Mauro <Andy.Mauro@nuance.com> wrote:
>> Agreed, browser settings are usually outside the scope of standards. If so
>> shouldn't we simply drop R.31 that allows users to select the recognizer,
>> especially if we agree about how important it is that a developer can select
>> it? I'm not averse to some general language specifying that 'the user agent
>> may under certain circumstances elect to ignore the developer requested
>> resource in favor of a local or alternate network resource, but generally
>> speaking developer requests should be honored', but specifically mentioning
>> browser controls seems like an implementation issue...
>> 
>> -Andy
>> 
>>> From: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:14:18 +0100
>>> To: Andy Mauro <Andy.Mauro@nuance.com>
>>> Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, <Olli@pettay.fi>,
>>> <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Offline webapps and speech UI
>>> 
>>> Listing that would require defining what 'settings', 'modes' and
>>> 'specialized browsers' mean. Is there a precedent for this in any
>>> other standard or working draft? It also feels like it is quite early
>>> to get into such narrow specifics.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Satish
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Andy Mauro <Andy.Mauro@nuance.com> wrote:
>>>> It'd be worth enumerating the 'settings, modes or specialized browsers' -
>>>> it's not obvious to me why any browser would want to ignore the developers
>>>> wishes to use a specialized resource excepting the offline scenario. Unless
>>>> we're very clear in specifying the expected default mode of operation and
>>>> the specific scenarios under which the defaults are not heeded there is
>>>> room
>>>> for misuse, or more likely, misinterpretation which leads to developer AND
>>>> user pain because the quality and functionality of webapps cannot be
>>>> controlled.
>>>> 
>>>> -Andy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:05:47 +0100
>>>>> To: Andy Mauro <Andy.Mauro@nuance.com>
>>>>> Cc: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>, <Olli@pettay.fi>,
>>>>> <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Offline webapps and speech UI
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think we agree that the intention is that typical browsers would by
>>>>> default follow the web app's requests. There may be settings, modes or
>>>>> specialized browsers that turn it off by default. As long as the
>>>>> browser lets the web app know, we won't be any worse off than if the
>>>>> browser had simply turned off or never implemented the speech input
>>>>> feature.
>>>>> 
>>>>> /Bjorn
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Andy Mauro <Andy.Mauro@nuance.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It really boils down to what the default setting is ;) If it's to reject
>>>>>> developer requests for particular reco resources then we're likely not in
>>>>>> agreement since IMO this will cause apps to not work if a developer uses
>>>>>> recognizer specific functionality (which as much as I don't like this, is
>>>>>> the way it is today). If the default is to accept developer requests, and
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> user has to manually modify the setting to use only local resources or an
>>>>>> alternate network resource, then I think all our goals are met (security,
>>>>>> privacy, app consistency)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Andy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:49:51 +0100
>>>>>>> To: Andy Mauro <Andy.Mauro@nuance.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, <Olli@pettay.fi>,
>>>>>>> <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Offline webapps and speech UI
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm more concerned with the loophole that arises that seems to mean
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> browsers can simply use their preferred recognizer all the time
>>>>>>>> irrespective
>>>>>>>> of developer choice.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't see that as a loophole, but akin to (2) in your list where the
>>>>>>> 'paranoid privacy setting' is 'downloading and using a browser which
>>>>>>> uses my preferred recognizer'.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - Satish
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:29:00 UTC