Re: R24. End user should be able to use speech in a hands-free mode

To capture both parts of "Not all apps need do have a hands-free mode.
 Neither do all UAs.", how about adding these two requirements:

1. "It should be possible for user agents to allow hands-free speech input."

2. "User agents should not be required to allow hands-free speech input. "

/Bjorn

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Robert Brown
<Robert.Brown@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Or perhaps "it should be possible to create applications that can operate in a hands-free mode"
>
> Not all apps need do have a hands-free mode.  Neither do all UAs.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Satish Sampath
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:46 AM
> To: Olli@pettay.fi
> Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: R24. End user should be able to use speech in a hands-free mode
>
> I also think we should not make it mandatory to use speech in hands-free mode if the user agent is not enabled for hands-free mode.
> Many traditional desktop web browsers are not built for hands-free usage and it doesn't make sense to me that one particular web page which may use speech input can claim to be hands-free when the rest of the browser (i.e. the browser chrome, menus, other user interface
> elements) aren't hands-free.
>
> Perhaps the requirement should be "user agents with a hands-free mode should be able to support speech-input in hands-free mode as well".
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>> R24 is not quite unclear, IMO. The requirement and explanation seem to
>> talk about a bit different things.
>> Yes, I think end user should be able to use speech in a hands-free
>> mode, but "to speech-enable every aspect of a web application"?
>> Not so sure. There are applications which will be difficult to fully
>> speech-enable. For example some drawing app, which needs to recognize
>> touch/mouse pressure. Sure, user could say, "draw a pixel using
>> pressure x to (1, 1), and then a pixel using pressure y to (2, 2)",
>> but that wouldn't be quite practical.
>>
>> So, I'd say keep R24 (especially with wording "should" and not
>> "must"), but clarify the explanation somehow.
>>
>> -Olli
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/2010 10:08 AM, 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 24 [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#r24
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
Registered in England Number: 3977902

Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 12:15:34 UTC