W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Field without a prompt

From: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:39:27 +0200
Message-ID: <453739BF.6070307@optimsys.cz>
To: Petrova Anastasia <Anastasia.Petrova@bercut.com>, www-voice@w3.org

Hi,
each user usually disconnects after not hearing anything for a while 
which interrupts the infinite loop. Furthermore, there
for sure may appear other potentially dangerous situations and therefore 
each vxml platform should employ some security
mechanisms to protect against these risks.

Petr

-- 
   Petr Kuba, Project Manager
   OptimSys, s.r.o
   kuba@optimsys.cz
   Tel: +420 541 143 065
   Fax: +420 585 750 429
   http://www.optimsys.cz


Petrova Anastasia wrote:
> I have a library that validates the scripts. It just goes through tags
> and says whether everithing in the script is valid or not. Assuming that
> the field is the only one in the form it will be visited again and again
> (it is possible that there are no factors that prevent visiting this
> field again) till the user says something matching the grammar. And this
> may cause a problem since it may become an infinite loop. But it seems
> that it is the correct behavior according to the spec. Thank you very
> much for the answer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petr Kuba [mailto:kuba@optimsys.cz] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:01
> To: www-voice@w3.org
> Cc: Petrova Anastasia
> Subject: Re: Field without a prompt
>
> Hi Anastasia,
>
> The spec seems to be very clear about behaviour in the situation you
> described. As Teemu Tingander already explained, when the interpreter
> should reprompt and there are no prompts in the respective <field>,
> nothing
> will be said to the user when interpreting the prompt.
>
> If there is no but the default nomatch event handler present and the
> user
> says something unrecognizable, platform default prompt informing about
> the
> nomatch situation is spoken to the user and the field is visited again
> (unless other factors will prevent it - see FIA in the spec), which is
> an
> acceptable behaviour.
>
> If there is no but the default noinput event handler present and the
> user
> is silent until the noinput timeout elapses, no prompt is spoken at all
> and
> the field is visited again (unless other factors will prevent it), which
> is
> kind of pathological behaviour since the user has no feedback. Anyway,
> it
> is the correct behaviour according to the spec.
>
> I don't understand why you should translate such a script for a platform
> that will perform it. Such a script is a correct one, though not very
> user
> friendly. Could you please be more specific about your needs and the
> platform
> you use?
>
>
> Petr
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 08:39:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:49:04 GMT