RE: Split TTS and Speech Recognition?

Hi Milan,

Out of interest, in which browser would you be implementing the API?

/Bjorn
On Dec 9, 2013 8:42 PM, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:

> Please excuse the late response.  I have not been actively monitoring this
> list for some time.
>
> Contrary to Glen's assertion, I believe a unified spec would indeed
> accelerate implementation.  Speaking for Nuance, a global leader in the
> field of both recognition and TTS, we would gladly begin implementation if
> the spec were sanctioned under a WG.  Splitting recognition from TSS on a
> temporary or even permanent basis seems like a small price to pay for this
> greater good.
>
> Regards
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Raj (Openstream) [mailto:raj@openstream.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:49 AM
> > To: Doug Schepers; Glen Shires
> > Cc: Web Speech
> > Subject: Re: Split TTS and Speech Recognition?
> >
> > Speaking from my vantage position, I find both the arguments plausible,
> > recognizing that more work needs to be done before the current artifacts
> > become SPECs.
> >
> > To GLEN's point, implementors can still implement part of the SPEC ( and
> it
> > could be just TTS)..
> > and yes, there are plenty of use-cases ( again for a web developer) for
> just
> > using TTS in the apps.
> >
> > It's not clear to me, how and why keeping them in "SYNCH" would be a
> better
> > thing to do..( aside from the convenience of reading one spec as opposed
> to
> > two)...and at the same time, not sure how splitting them into two, would
> make
> > it more attractive/likely for any other group to absorb...
> >
> > IMHO, implementors can take any portion of any spec and conform to the
> > extent of their capability and desire...
> > and so can WGs..
> >
> > But, yes, it'll continue to be frustrating that we have so many "SPECs"
> that are
> > not standards from a developers'/implementors'
> > point of view.
> >
> > Raj
> >
> > On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:25:10 +0200
> >   Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> > > Hi, Glen–
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be pesky about this, and I'm not going to get pushy.
> > >But I'd like you to reconsider this, and I'd like to hear from others
> > >what they think (especially implementers).
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/8/13 8:40 PM, Glen Shires wrote:
> > >> A unified spec hasn't slowed implementations, as there are currently
> > >> browsers that implement the ASR portion and not the TTS portion, and
> > >> browsers that implement the TTS portion and not the ASR portion.
> > >
> > > This would seem to be an argument for splitting them up, not keeping
> > >them together. They are moving at different rates.
> > >
> > >
> > >> (And speech aside, there are many examples where implementors
> > >> implement a spec in parts.)
> > >
> > > Yes, but this is not good for web developers. It's to be avoided, if
> > >possible. With my web developer hat on, this is really frustrating.
> > >This is why CSS took a more modular approach, which is working pretty
> > >well in terms of consistency and interoperability.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Also, keeping TTS and ASR together avoids the problem of having to
> > >>sync  things up in the future.
> > >
> > > Speaking from a position of ignorance and curiosity, what things need
> > >to be synced up between TTS and ASR? They seem pretty orthogonal from
> > >my reading of the spec.
> > >
> > >
> > >> As the unified spec matures, it may have a  better chance of finding
> > >>a unified home in one of the major W3C groups,  such as HTML.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there. Why would a single spec
> > >have a better chance of being adopted by a WG than 2 smaller specs?
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there some concern that one would get implemented, and not the
> > >other, so keeping them together might incent implementers to do both?
> > >
> > >
> > >Finally, I just want to be clear that this request is not me speaking
> > >with my W3C hat on; I'm speaking solely as an interested web developer
> > >who wants his apps to work in as many browsers as possible, and who's
> > >mostly using the TTS stuff.
> > >
> > > Regards-
> > > -Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >> Glen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
> > >> <mailto:schepers@w3.org>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>     Hi, folks–
> > >>
> > >>     I'd like to propose that the text-to-speech feature be split out
> > >>     from the Web Speech API spec; it's more or less orthogonal with
> > >>the
> > >>     speech recognition aspect of the spec, and while there are still
> > >>     open issues that are being discussed, I think it's more stable in
> > >>     terms of implementations, and could move forward more quickly on
> > >>its
> > >>     own.
> > >>
> > >>     I have been using both TTS and speech recognition in some of my
> > >>     recent apps, and I think both are very cool and useful; I think
> > >>both
> > >>     will be great for accessibility, as well. TTS is much simpler,
> > >>     though, and I think we could get more implementations right away
> > >>if
> > >>     we split it out. I really want to see both succeed, at their own
> > >>pace.
> > >>
> > >>     (As an aside, I made a "talking calculator" back in 2004 using
> > >>SVG
> > >>     and the Microsoft IE TTS API; it no longer works, but it hints to
> > >>me
> > >>     that it wouldn't be too hard for Microsoft to implement the more
> > >>     modern TTS functionality in IE, if the path ahead were clear for
> > >>them.)
> > >>
> > >>     In light of the recent news that the W3C Web Speech WG is not
> > >>going
> > >>     to be formed [1], I think the work should still be done in the
> > >>Web
> > >>     Speech Community Group, though maybe when it's mature enough, it
> > >>     could move to an existing W3C WG to become a Recommendation.
> > >>
> > >>     (I don't have a strong feeling about which group this might fit
> > >>in,
> > >>     but a few spring to mind: the WebApps WG, the Audio WG, or the
> > >>HTML
> > >>     WG to take advantage of the new CC-BY licensing being
> > >>experimented
> > >>     on there. It could even be its own WG, though that seems like
> > >>     overkill to me.)
> > >>
> > >>     If any of this resonates with this group, I'm happy to help with
> > >>it
> > >>     unofficially, with my W3C staff experience. (If it were
> > >>ultimately
> > >>     moved into the Audio WG, then I could give my official help,
> > >>since
> > >>     that's one of my working groups. :P)
> > >>
> > >>     [1]
> > >>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-new-
> > work/__2013Oct/0004.html
> > >>
> > >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Oct/0004.htm
> > >> l>
> > >>
> > >>     Regards-
> > >>     -Doug
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:
> > THIS E-MAIL IS  MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE
> > TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW.  IF
> > YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
> > DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  PLEASE
> > NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE
> > DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR
> > YOUR COOPERATION.
> > Reply to : legal@openstream.com
> >
>
>