Re: Voice assistants means platform focus

Atleast  for sharing “ data/input”  that is not  just speech among 
systems, one could consider the work done by W3C Multi Modal 
Interaction Working Group ( MMI WG)..particularly, Extensions for 
Multimodal Annotation ( EMMA) mentioned here:

https://www.w3.org/TR/emma/

In addition to providing a portable way to share input through speech 
& other modalities, it also provides for time-sequence of these input 
events for maintaining isochronous info.

Regards,
Raj





On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:58:02 -0700
  Claudio Luis Vera <claudio@simple-theory.com> wrote:
> Joe brings up a field that most of us who work in web accessibility 
>are
> barely aware of. AAC allows people who are non-verbal to communicate
> through synthesized speech, and typically it's the only means 
>available for
> verbal communications. AAC developers historically have worked with 
>bespoke
> solutions, and manufacturers have not been diligent about backward 
>and
> forward compatibility. This has left communicators like Joe's 
>daughter
> Siobhan virtually helpless when their AAC system eventually fails.
> 
> I would hate to see Joe's concerns being brushed off as off-topic in 
>this
> forum. Instead, I think we should take a more holistic approach to 
>voice
> UI. Today's voice assistants are conversational interfaces that are
> primarily geared at gathering voice input from a user, to return 
>content
> from a remote source through speech.
> 
> AAC reverses this challenge:  A user like Joe's daughter should have 
>the
> most frictionless input means available, in order to select the 
>words that
> will be output through synthesized speech. The best solutions would 
>look
> at reducing friction and speeding up that process through any means
> possible (eyegaze, switches, autocomplete, AI, machine learning, 
>e.g.)
> Today's AAC systems typically don't take advantage of smart 
>technologies
> yet.
> 
> In addition, Joe brings up a huge interoperability and portability
> challenge. A standardized approach like package.json for capturing
> configuration settings and dependencies would take care of many of 
>these
> issues. I can't fathom that the other data could not be ported 
>through a
> typical data migration as a volunteer hacking project.
> 
> We really should broaden our approach so that portability and 
>forward
> compatibility front and center, and that AAC and voice output is 
>also
> included.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:53 AM Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com> 
>wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 16/03/2019 12:53, Cameron Cundiff wrote:
>> >  From what I can tell, the original intention was to focus on 
>>design of
>> conversational interfaces with voice assistant platforms 
>>specifically, as
>> opposed to voice as an input mechanism, or core text to speech and 
>>speech
>> to text tech. Does that sound right Léonie?
>>
>> More or less, yes. The idea was to look at whether we could come up 
>>with
>> a way to code once and deploy across multiple platforms.
>>
>> Léonie.
>>
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Cameron
>> >
>> >> On Mar 16, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Joseph K O'Connor 
>><josephoconnor@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Interoperability of databases is my first goal.
>> >>
>> >> Manufacturers of learning management systems (WebCT, Blackboard, 
>>Desire
>> to Learn are examples) have agreed to make courseware interoperable. 
>>The
>> standard is SCORM, Shareable Content Object Reference Model.
>> >>
>> >> At its core, SCORM allows content authors to distribute their 
>>content
>> to a variety of Learning Management Systems (LMS) with the smallest
>> headache possible. And for an LMS to handle content from a variety 
>>of
>> sources.
>> >>
>> >> In the same way there is a need for users of AAC systems to load 
>>the
>> databases they have created on one system onto another system.
>> >>
>> >> Told from the point of view of one communicator, some info about 
>>AAC
>> systems and possible areas where standards will help.
>> >>
>> >> http://accessiblejoe.com/wizard/
>> >>
>> >> Joseph
>> >>
>> >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 2:46 AM, Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't know much about Alternative and Augmentitive 
>>Communication
>> (AAC) systems. Can you give us a simple description or point to some 
>>good
>> descriptions elsewhere?
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, what would the standardisation look like for an AAC 
>>system? What
>> are the things that could be standardised?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Léonie.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 16/03/2019 02:42, Joseph K O'Connor, wrote:
>> >>>> I'm interested in talking about standards for AAC systems. For
>> instance, databases are not interoperable, even between different 
>>devices
>> by the same manufacturer. This has very serious effects. Each time 
>>my
>> daughter has to switch devices we have to remake all the grids, 
>>buttons,
>> button behaviors, links between pages, find and upload pictures of 
>>people
>> she interacts with, and deal with subtle changes introduced by the 
>>new
>> software. Who will do this when we're gone? I fear for her future.
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Joe
>> >>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Cameron Cundiff 
>><cameron@ckundo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks Léonie. I’ll chime in with my interests too.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I’m curious to find emergent practices in Voice UI design, and
>> figure out how to document and influence them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Examples include: how to offer non-verbal alternatives to 
>>speech
>> input for non-verbal users; expectations for accent support and
>> internationalization; accommodations for AAC users and delayed 
>>speech;
>> volume controls and defaults; enabling and disabling speech input 
>>and
>> playback. To name a few.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best,
>> >>>>> Cameron
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Léonie Watson 
>><lw@tetralogical.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think the original reason for this CG was to explore
>> standardisation across the different voice assistants.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This was in part an attempt to avoid the enduring problem 
>>already
>> evident with native mobile development: cross-platform production is 
>>costly
>> and complicated.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> There is also a counterpart in the UI that is far more common 
>>than
>> it is for mobile: the burden of learning and swapping between 
>>assistants is
>> high, but because of the significant differences in their 
>>capabilities,
>> it's increasingly common to find households with devices from 
>>multiple
>> providers.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That doesn't mean the CG needs to continue along this path, 
>>though
>> we might need a name change if we alter course!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Phil, can you describe more about the things you mentioned? 
>>I'm not
>> quite sure I understood the sort of thing you'd like the CG to 
>>explore.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Perhaps with all the possibilities, it would help to throw 
>>some
>> suggestions out as to the deliverables we might produce?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Léonie.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 15/03/2019 14:33, Phil Archer wrote:
>> >>>>>>> I don't speak for others but for my own POV we're not 
>>talking about
>> >>>>>>> established voice assistants like the ones you mention, no. 
>>My own
>> >>>>>>> interest - and I'm being led by Brian Subirana - is on 
>>talking
>> to/about
>> >>>>>>> products ('cos GS1 is about commerce). Things like wake 
>>words that
>> can
>> >>>>>>> be referenced - Brain might be able to jump in and say more.
>> >>>>>>> But to come to your point - I'd certainly be interested in 
>>voice
>> UI in
>> >>>>>>> general, not specifically voice assistants.
>> >>>>>>> Phil
>> >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2019 14:17, Cameron Cundiff wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Thinking about our focus on voice assistants and the limits 
>>of
>> that.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I think conversational interfaces are a narrow subset of 
>>voice
>> UI, are platform specific in implementation and design, and are 
>>limited
>> modalities compared to generalized voice commands.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It’d be easier, in my opinion, to talk about standards for 
>>Voice
>> UI than specifically assistants, because these assistants operate 
>>with
>> different mental models compared to one another.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Is this CG exclusively focused on Alexa, Google Assistant, 
>>Siri
>> etc, or can it reach into general voice input for AR and VR, web, 
>>apps, etc?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Is it limited to conversational interfaces, or can it 
>>include
>> single turn commands, earcons, and speech playback?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Best,
>> >>>>>>>> Cameron
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> Phil Archer
>> >>>>>>> Director, Web Solutions, GS1
>> >>>>>>> https://www.gs1.org
>> >>>>>>> http://philarcher.org
>> >>>>>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> >>>>>>> @philarcher1
>> >>>>>>> Skype: philarcher
>> >>>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail 
>>are
>> confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or
>> acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium).
>> >>>>>>> If you are not the addressee, or if this has been copied or 
>>sent
>> to you in error, you must not use data herein for any purpose, you 
>>must
>> delete it, and should inform the sender.
>> >>>>>>> GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or completeness, and 
>>opinions
>> expressed are those of the author alone.
>> >>>>>>> GS1 may monitor communications.
>> >>>>>>> Third party rights acknowledged.
>> >>>>>>> (c) 2016.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> @TetraLogical TetraLogical.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> @TetraLogical TetraLogical.com
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> @TetraLogical TetraLogical.com
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> User Experience | Information Architecture | Accessibility
> simple-theory.com
> +1 954-417-4188
--
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

Received on Monday, 18 March 2019 09:02:22 UTC