W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2003

some WAI comments on SSML

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:42:43 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122224046.021c3400@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: www-voice@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org


<notes
class="inTransmittal">

Reference:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-speech-synthesis-20021202/

These comments were developed in the Protocols and Formats working group.
They have had some of the rough edges knocked off them in that process,
but are certainly open to clarification and refinement.  We don't claim
to have absorbed all the context for the current document completely.

If there is anything in these comments which is not clear, or appears to be
un-implementable, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these points
with you before you make a final determination on a disposition.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Al
--
Al Gilman, Chair
W3C/WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group

</notes>

1.  Pronunciation Lexicon

The Voice Browser working group contemplates perhaps producing a format
specification for a pronunciation lexicon document type which would be used
with SSML and other formats.

Some of our applications depend on using [something like SSML] together with
a lexicon to reach an acceptable level of speech quality.

We look forward to the availability of that piece of the system.

You asked for comments as to whether there should be able to be lexicon
references proper to elements not the root element.  Yes, this should be
possible.  We look forward to the use of lexicon support for not only
pronunciation but also semantic interpretation.  See for example

  Checkpoint 4.3 Annotate complex, abbreviated, or...
  http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#provide-overview

  Interoperable Language System (ILS)
  http://www.ubaccess.com/ils.html

Block quotes of technical material would benefit from their own lexicon
bindings, particularly if in one SSML document there are such block
quotes from different disciplines.

2.  [editorial] Use of the term "final form."  Don't.  It will just raise
more questions than it answers, it would appear.

3. VoiceXML took the 'audio' element from SSML,  As a result of the Last
Call review of VoiceXML 2.0 this element got changed a bit.  Please bring
the 'audio' element as used in SSML into agreement with the definition in
VoiceXML 2.0, including the specification language defining and describing
the 'desc' element.

http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2002/voicexml20-disposition.htm#R478-1

4. Please consider the addition of a conformance clause defining a base
profile of voice adaptation capabilities, as required to be sure to produce
recognizable speech under  all conditions of hearing impairment which can
readily or reasonably be worked around through the adjustment of speech
characteristics readily implemented in the speech synthesis engine.  Compare
with parameters identified for user control in the User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines Checkpoints 4.9 through 4.13

  http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#gl-user-control-styles

And that SSML processors will, for all languages that they support, follow the
xml:lang indications in the markup.  Compare with:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-identify-changes
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 23:42:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:56 GMT