W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

(unknown charset) RE: Text-to-speech feature: a real help ?

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:53:34 -0500 (EST)
To: (unknown charset) Régine Lambrecht <Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu>
cc: (unknown charset) Jonathan Hassell <jonathanhassell@yahoo.co.uk>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1202211149320.5131@cygnus.smart.net>

I have never heard of any study that I would consider complete enough to 
use as a reference.   this subgroup is so diverse and scattered that just 
finding a representative sample would be very very difficult.
and because the technology is changing so rapidly the study might be out 
of date by the time it is published.

however I suspect and from my own personal experience have found that 
assitive tech users tend to be more stable in their tech use and upgrade 
only, when what they are comfortable with is unusable by their current 
technology.

Bob

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, [utf-8] Régine Lambrecht wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:47:21 +0100
> From: "[utf-8] Régine Lambrecht" <Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu>
> To: Jonathan Hassell <jonathanhassell@yahoo.co.uk>,
>     Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>,
>     "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Text-to-speech feature: a real help ?
> Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:44:19 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> I agree with you, and that’s exactly what I will tell to my client J :
>
> ·         users who need audio (for any reason: impairement, laziness to read…) have their own,
>
> ·         anyway this one is not really usable (cannot skip or read again easily)
>
>
>
> But I wanted to add a reference “from the users”. Does anyone know a survey or study around ? I think I never came accross such a study. Do you ?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot
>
>
>
> Régine Lambrecht
>
> E-fficiency Coordinator
>
> Prevention Advisor
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Tel. +32.2.235.56.62
>
> <http://twitter.com/e_fficiency> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/reginelambrecht>
>
>
>
> www.tipik.eu<http://www.tipik.eu>
>
> Tipik Communication Agency S.A.
>
> Avenue de Tervueren 270 • B-1150 Bruxelles
>
> Tel. +32.2.235.56.70 • Fax +32.2.235.56.99
>
> Tipik is a Sword Group Company
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Hassell [mailto:jonathanhassell@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:25 PM
> To: Patrick H. Lauke; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Text-to-speech feature: a real help ?
>
>
>
> Terrill, Patrick,
>
>
>
> Actually, the top use-case for site-specific tools is browsing on multiple devices, especially mobile. Desktop/laptop OSes, ATs and browsers can provide much of what people need. But go onto mobile and those facilities are often not available.
>
>
>
> So there are good reasons...
>
>
>
> Yes, the constraint is that these tools are site-specific at the moment. But see GPII (http://gpii.net/) for a way around that particular issue and a potential way of getting site-specific and locally hosted accessibility aids to talk with each other.
>
>
>
> Over to you Gregg Vanderheiden...
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 14:53
> Subject: Re: Text-to-speech feature: a real help ?
>
>
> On 21/02/2012 14:46, Terrill Bennett wrote:
>> I have to ask...
>>
>> 1) If the user requires text-to-speech to understand your site, how did
>> the user GET to your web site in order to benefit from this technology?
>> ("Magic" is not an acceptable answer).
>>
>> 2) If the user requires text-to-speech to understand your site, and
>> since users spend most of their time on OTHER web sites... what do they
>> use when they leave your site?
>>
>> Answering these two questions will probably answer your original question.
>
> I have to agree with Terrill's sentiment here. I've been known to be quite critical of these sorts of site-specific tools (a particular pet hate of mine has been BrowseAloud in the past) - though I'd even include things like text size switchers and colour changers to the list, as they're again site-specific.
>
> It's likely that users that need those sorts of tools have them installed on their machine already. The only use case that is then cited is "what about if they're not on their own machine...maybe in a library or an internet cafe, where they can't install anything" - which I'd still argue is then the responsibility of the library/cafe to provide assistive tech and relevant configuration options, rather than the burden being shifted onto each individual site.
>
> P
>
>
>> At 09:17 AM 2/21/2012, Régine Lambrecht wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> do you have references on how impaired users consider text-to-speech
>>> alternative, such as Readspeaker (http://www.readspeaker.com).
>>>
>>> Is it a good feature to add to a page that *is already accessible* ?
>>> Does it help impaired users or do they consider this negatively (maybe
>>> because you can’t skip paragraphs or easily read again words, for
>>> instance?) ?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your input
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Régine Lambrecht
>>> *E-fficiency Coordinator
>>> Prevention Advisor
>
>
> -- Patrick H. Lauke
> ______________________________________________________________
> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
> ______________________________________________________________
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> ______________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6902 (20120221) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>

image001.png
(IMAGE/PNG attachment: image001.png)

image002.png
(IMAGE/PNG attachment: image002.png)

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 16:54:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 February 2012 16:54:21 GMT