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

Re: in-page text-to-speech

From: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:58:30 +0200
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "GF Mueden@" <gfmueden@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <op.wi013sbu22x22q@chaals.local>
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:40:06 +0200, GF Mueden@ <gfmueden@verizon.net>  
wrote:

> As a viewer with bad eyes but still able to use them, I would have  
> welcomed in-page text-to-speech.

You should try it out. The example Adam gave at the start of this thread  
is as good a place as any.

> However, sites thoughtful enough to offer it were so thoughtful in other  
> ways that it was never needed.

Yes (as someone already said), the benefit of people who add it because it  
helps people, rather than because they became convinced that this was an  
easy way to solve some conformance problem, is that they are the sort of  
people who get adaptable design right. If you don't get it right, then  
in-page speech is often pretty annoying even for people it might seriously  
help.

> It always turns out that those who suggest I try Narrator do not  
> themselves use it.  The shortcuts are not memorable, only for regular  
> use.

This turns out to be the case for most things...

> Therefor in-page would be helpful.  I would welcome it for AFB.org's
> 100 line, long line articles whose margins I may not bring in without
> truncating.

Again, try before you suggest it (as you are suggesting people do with  
Narrator). What sounds good in principle may or may not be in practice,  
and it is helpful to have a conversation based on experience of the  
shortcomings as well as imagining the potential and how to realise it.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Chaals - standards declaimer
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:58:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:30 UTC