Re: MediaStream, ArrayBuffer, Blob audio result from speak() for recording?

Thanks for suggesting these use cases. There are text-to-speech
applications and services available from numerous vendors, and also
numerous screen-capture / audio-capture and remote-desktop
applications. These seem to me to be designed for use cases and
workflows that you describe. Therefore, it's not clear to me that
adding this additional API feature to browsers would be highly
beneficial.

Others on this list may also wish to respond.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:20 PM, guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: MediaStream, ArrayBuffer, Blob audio result from speak() for
> recording?
> To: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
>
>
> Relevant bug for Firefox
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1377816. Feature request for
> Chromium https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=733051#c3.
> Workaround so far at github
> https://github.com/guest271314/SpeechSynthesisRecorder. It took a while to
> determine that Monitor of Built-in Audio was necessary instead of Built-in
> Audio at .getUserMedia() prompt.
>
> Beginning here within this email, three widely applicable and appropriate
> use cases which are at the forefront are
>
> 1) Persons who have issues speaking; i.e.g., persons whom have suffered a
> stroke or other communication inhibiting afflictions. They could convert
> text to an audio file and send the file to another individual or group.
> This feature would go towards helping them communicate with other persons,
> similar to the technologies which assist Stephen Hawking communicate;
>
> 2) Presently, the only person who can hear the audio output is the person in
> front of the browser; in essence, not utilizing the full potential of the
> text to speech functionality. The audio result can be used as an attachment
> within an email; media stream; chat system; or other communication
> application. That is, control over the generated audio output;
>
> 3) Another application would be to provide a free, libre, open source audio
> dictionary and translation service - client to client and client to server,
> server to client.
>
> Those are the main three use cases. There are others that can fathom; though
> the above should be adequate to cover a wide range of users of the
> implementation.
>
> If, in your or your organizations' view, those use cases are not compelling
> or detailed enough, please advise and will compose a more thorough analysis
> and proposal.
>
> The current workaround is cumbersome.  Why should we have to use
> navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia() and MediaRecorder to get the audio
> output? It is not as if the workaround is impossible to achieve, though why
> are we needing to use two additional methods to get audio as a static file?
>
> At a minimum we should be able to get a Blob or ArrayBuffer of the generated
> audio. The Blob or ArrayBuffer could, generally, be converted to other
> formats, if necessary. For example meSpeak.js already provides the described
> functionality http://plnkr.co/edit/ZShBbiFGEKIJX2WgErkl?p=preview.
>
> Regards,
> /guest271314
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> If I understand correctly, you have a solution for one browser, but not
>> with a second browser.  I suggest you post your question on that browser
>> vendor's developer forum.
>>
>> You also asked about the possibility of adding an additional, optional
>> parameter to the spec.  Typically, such feature requests begin with a
>> description of the use case that it supports, as there are sometimes various
>> ways to support a particular use case.  If you'd like to propose a feature
>> request, please specify detailed use case(s) for them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Glen
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 23:00:33 UTC