W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [css3-speech] 'speakability' property name

From: Andrew Thompson <lordpixel@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:00:56 -0400
Message-id: <D6048CE1-97A6-4390-8DF8-8D8A4B65858D@mac.com>
Cc: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Looks good to me



On Apr 27, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi !
> There are currently no implementations of 'speakability' [1], as it has only just been created from the old [2] 'speak' property (which is now split into 2 distinct properties).
> 
> Existing implementations [3] of previous versions of the CSS3-Speech draft will have to be updated anyway, so we might as well grab the opportunity to fix the specification now. Given the scarcity of both CSS-Speech/Aural implementations and content, I would have thought that the "annoyance" caused by the renaming / refactoring of the speaking properties would be minimal. Note that the proposed change would not diverge much from the old CSS 2.1 Aural Appendix [4] either:
> 
> 'speak' ==> [auto | none | normal]
> 'speak-style' ==> [ normal | spell-out | digits | literal-punctuation | no-punctuation ]
> 
> (PS: I am not keen on your suggested 'pronunciation' property name, because of the risk of confusion with phonemes and lexicons ... thus why I propose 'speak-style' instead)
> 
> Thoughts ?
> Daniel
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-speech/#speakability
> 
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-css3-speech-20041216/#speaking-props
> 
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Mar/0389.html
> 
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/aural.html#speaking-props
> 
> 
> On 27 Apr 2011, at 13:21, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> 
>> You're correct, use of this invented  word is ugly.
>> 
>> This is tricky because in an ideal world I think speakability would in fact be speak (as in speak: none or speak: auto) and the existing speak property would work well if it were called pronunciation (pronunciation: normal, pronunciation: spell-out). Still no chance of that now.
>> 
>> 'Speaking' doesn't work because it's the present participle of a verb (gerund) and you need a noun construct like speaking-style or an adjective for consistency.
>> 
>> Some alternatives
>> 'speech'
>> 'audibility'
>> 'aural'
>> ?
>> 
>> On Apr 26, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello !
>>> 
>>> I am not a native english speaker, so I would like to query your opinion about the 'speakability' property name [1]. A better alternative may be 'speaking', but I'm concerned about its juxtaposition with the existing 'speak' property, and the resulting potential misinterpretations.
>>> 
>>> Note that although CSS3-Speech is directly "inspired" by SSML [2], the closest equivalent to the 'speak' CSS functionality is described in the "say-as attribute values" W3C Note [3]. I would however not recommend the use of "say-as" instead of 'speak', because in the case of CSS3-Speech, the feature scope is much more limited (in other words, using "say-as" would effectively be misleading).
>>> 
>>> Regards, Daniel
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-speech/#speaking-props
>>> 
>>> [2]
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis/
>>> 
>>> [3]
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/ssml-sayas/
>>> 
> 
> Daniel Weck
> daniel.weck@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 23:01:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT