W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Proposed minimal requirements for audio/speech checkpoints.

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:28:05 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
For synthesized speech I think the minimum requirement should be the range 
of values supported by the synthesizer.  Most synthesizer technology allows 
a user agent to enumerate these values for selection by the user.  The CSS 
specifications could be a second choice, if the API does not provide for 

This proposal would also allow the keeping of the current articulation 
charactersitics.  in the few people with head injuries that I haved worked 
with, pitch and gender were important factors and I would hate to see them 


At 03:13 PM 6/12/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I propose that minimal requirements for the following checkpoints
>from the 10 June draft [1] be established on the basis of
>property values in the CSS2 Recommendation [2]:
>   4.8 Allow the user to configure and control the audio volume.
>   4.9 Allow the user to configure and control synthesized speech
>       playback rate.
>   4.11 Allow the user to configure synthesized speech pitch, gender,
>        and other articulation characteristics.
>The relevant CSS2 properties are 'volume' (in CSS, for speech
>only, but we can generalize its values here) and the voice
>characteristics properties of section 19.8 [3]:
>This is not a requirement for user agents to implement CSS,
>but to allow the same range of abstract values as specified in CSS.
>CSS also allows numbers and percentages, but I don't want to
>make those requirements.
>For instance, for volume, the following range would be mapped to
>six "real" levels by the user agent: silent, x-soft, soft,
>medium, loud, x-loud. Similarly, for speech-rate: x-slow,
>slow, medium, fast, x-fast. The relative rates "faster" and
>"slower" are relative values specific to CSS inheritance,
>so would not be required.
>I will write out the specific values for checkpoints 4.8, 4.9,
>and 4.11, but for now I want to get feedback as to whether
>people think that this is a reasonable approach.
>IMPORTANT: I propose that we delete "and other articulation
>characteristics" from checkpoint 4.11 since that makes it
>much harder to specify minimal requirements.
>  - Ian
>[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000610/
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 13:28:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:27 UTC