W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Overview paragraph

From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:22:20 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTin7h5BQCz5rrguxu8OmKx2LtVpqVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "Raj(Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Satish S <satish@google.com>, Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI)" <dd5826@att.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
A consistent user experience is not the same as an identical user
experience. For example, user agents render web pages using varying
window sizes and pixel densities.

/Bjorn

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
> All default recognizers must return the same results/timings with the same
> input waveform?  All default synthesizers should return the same samples on
> the same input SSML?
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Raj(Openstream) [mailto:raj@openstream.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:57 PM
> To: Satish S; Patrick Ehlen
>
> Cc: Deborah Dahl; Young, Milan; DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI);
> public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Overview paragraph
>
>
>
> Yes..I agree with Satish's point...any application that desires to leverage
> advanced/specific features
>
> of an ASR, cannot be guaranteed to be portable..within the scope our
> spec..and applications
>
> that use the default ( LCD ?) recognizer ( not sure if this is what Dan D
> had in mind, by saying
>
> "simple" applications )  should be portable and have consistent user
> experience with conforming
>
> browser/clients.
>
>
>
> --Raj
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Satish S
>
> To: Patrick Ehlen
>
> Cc: Deborah Dahl ; Young, Milan ; DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI) ;
> public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:38 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Overview paragraph
>
>
>
> As an express goal, perhaps we should clearly state that applications that
> use the default/built-in recognizer should be portable across all browsers
> and speech engines. Beyond that, if the web app chooses to use a particular
> engine by specifying a URL it seems ok to rely on extended/additional
> capabilities provided by that engine.
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com>
> wrote:
>
> Deborah is right that not all speech engines will have the same
> capabilities, but we should strive to provide general parameterizations of
> the potential capabilities wherever possible. Otherwise engine providers
> will need to add their own extensions to the standard, and development will
> get fractured across the lines of browser/engine, as we saw happen with
> earlier Javascript XML handlers, etc.
>
> On Apr 20, 2011, at 8:27, "Deborah Dahl"
> <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think we can reach the goal of applications being completely
>> portable across speech engines  because speech engines will always have
>> different capabilities, and some of these are unlikely to be in the scope
>> of
>> our API.  For example, engines will handle different languages, some
>> engines
>> will be able to handle larger grammars, some applications will make use of
>> proprietary SLM's, and some applications won't be usable without an engine
>> that has a certain level of accuracy. So  I agree with Milan that the goal
>> is not to standardize functionality across speech engines. I think we
>> should
>> just say " provide the user with a consistent experience across different
>> platforms and devices" and leave it at that.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-
>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Satish S
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:18 AM
>>> To: Young, Milan
>>> Cc: DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI); public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Overview paragraph
>>>
>>>    >> provide the user with a consistent experience across different
>>>    platforms and devices irrespective of the speech engine used.
>>>
>>>
>>>    This effort is not about standardizing functionality across speech
>>>    engines.  The goal is speech application portability across the
>>>    browsers.  Simple applications MAY be portable across speech engine
>>>    boundaries, but that's not a requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say the API proposal should aim for all applications to be portable
>> across
>>> speech engines. Starting with "may be portable" doesn't seem to fit the
>> spirit
>>> of the web. Any extensions for speech engine specific parameters and
>>> results should be optional.
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 20:22:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 April 2011 20:24:17 GMT