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

Re: Overview paragraph

From: Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:44:09 -0700
To: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
CC: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, "Raj(Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Satish S <satish@google.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI)" <dd5826@att.com>, "public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org" <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0728D3EA-EB4D-4FC9-8D53-1BEE44A36265@attinteractive.com>
Agreed. In my view, the point here is to provide a consistent set of methods for content developers to access speech services, whatever their particular capabilities may be.

For example, a developer may want to use a recognizer with a proprietary type of model and an instance of that model on a server somewhere. We should provide a method for someone to specify a URI for the recognizer, a URI for the model, and a place to pass parameters that may be particular to that type of model. It would be up to the recognizer to know how to handle the model and its parameters, but not part of our job here. 


On Apr 20, 2011, at 13:22, "Bjorn Bringert" <bringert@google.com> wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 21 April 2011 12:49:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 April 2011 12:49:28 GMT