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

Re: Text-to-speech feature: a real help ?

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:55:32 -0500 (EST)
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
cc: Terrill Bennett <list.w3c@spam-message.com>, Ginger Claassen <ginger.claassen@gmx.de>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1202211155000.5131@cygnus.smart.net>

I want M. Monroe on mine......

;}

Bob


On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:04:55 +0100
> From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
> To: Terrill Bennett <list.w3c@spam-message.com>,
>     Ginger Claassen <ginger.claassen@gmx.de>
> Cc: "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 16:05:55 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:47:35 +0100, Ginger Claassen <ginger.claassen@gmx.de> 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I do not now but I hav heard of varous websites where they have a tts 
>> feature for convinience with a nice voice. So it might be a nice goodie
>
> Yes, if done right it is probably not a *bad* thing (as it can be if it 
> interferes with, for example, a user's audio system. Think about someone 
> talking over the top of the radio when you are trying to listen and you'll 
> probably get the idea).
>
> The question is how much value it adds. Most people who need TTS have it in 
> their system, either free (MacOS, NVDA, ORCA, and various phone-based 
> equivalents) or something they have paid for because they wanted it (JAWS, 
> Window-eyes and friends). My idea of a nice voice is a deep scottish accent, 
> but many TTS users *prefer* a flat machine voice running very very fast, 
> while people who are reinforcing text they find difficult to read can have a 
> range of preferences. Which one would you add to your site, and how many 
> people is it going to help? What could you have done instead?
>
> One thing is clear - it almost certainly isn't a solution that can replace 
> making your site work with existing audio systems for most users who need 
> them.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>> :-)
>> 
>> Solong
>> 
>>      Ginger
>> 
>> 
>> On 21.02.2012 15:46, 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.
>>> 
>>> -- Terrill --
>>> 
>>> 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
>
>
> -- 
> Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>    je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 16:56:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 February 2012 16:56:20 GMT