- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:09:05 +0200
- To: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
- CC: "'Bjorn Bringert'" <bringert@google.com>, "'Michael Bodell'" <mbodell@microsoft.com>, "'Dan Burnett'" <dburnett@voxeo.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
On 12/09/2010 04:59 PM, Deborah Dahl wrote: > Here's a possible tweak on this one. > > "Web apps should be able to customize all aspects of the user > interface for speech recognition, except that end users must have a > clear tindication whenever the microphone is listening to the user". > > The reason I suggest this is that I think it's more specific and more > consistent with R32 "R32. End users need a clear indication whenever > microphone is listening to the user", in not calling out the specific > aspects of the user interface (i.e. security and privacy) where it > should not be customizable. > > On the other hand, my suggestion wouldn’t cover any possible cases > where security and privacy can be compromised in the user interface > of a speech app by something other than surreptitious recording, if > there are any, so we might need some combination of the wordings from > both proposals. Yeah, unfortunately "indication whenever the microphone is listening" is not enough. UAs must handle for example clickjacking somehow, so I assume that the domain which is trying to use speech services must be exposed to user. -Olli > >> -----Original Message----- From: >> public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjorn Bringert Sent: Thursday, >> December 09, 2010 5:26 AM To: Michael Bodell Cc: Olli@pettay.fi; >> Dan Burnett; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org Subject: Re: R13. Web >> application author should have ability to customize speech >> recognition graphical user interface >> >> I agree, I was trying to think of something along those lines too. >> Here's an alternative but pretty much equivalent wording, the only >> real change is dropping "graphical": >> >> "Web apps should be able to customize all aspects of the user >> interface for speech recognition, except for those aspects >> required for security and privacy." >> >> /Bjorn >> >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Michael >> Bodell<mbodell@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> I think there is something here that is missing if we just drop >>> it which is that >> the graphical user interface for the speech recognition may be >> different for different web applications even in the same user >> agent and that we should not, where possible, bake in one user >> interface as much as possible. Maybe a requirement that says >> something like "Web application authors should have no limits to >> their ability to customize the graphical user interface for speech >> recognition, except for those limitations which are necessary for >> security reasons"? A better wording is likely possible, but I >> think that is the idea we should be capturing. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: >>> public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg- >> htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjorn Bringert >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:38 AM To: Olli@pettay.fi Cc: >>> Dan Burnett; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org Subject: Re: R13. Web >>> application author should have ability to customize >> speech recognition graphical user interface >>> >>> As Olli says, this requirement can't be fully compatible with >>> our >> requirements that the user must be notified when recording occurs. >> If the web app could customize everything about the recognition UI, >> it could make the notification invisible. >>> >>> /Bjorn >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Olli >>> Pettay<Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> >> wrote: >>>> Because of possible security reasons, some customization may >>>> not be possible, some may. In other words, web app author must >>>> not be able to control everything in the speech GUI. >>>> >>>> R13 has two parts. One is the "include a clickable graphic to >>>> invoke speech recognition", the other one is "indicate the >>>> progress of the recognition through various states". It is the >>>> first one which *may* need to be limited a bit. And the latter >>>> one is already implicitly handled in the requirement for >>>> different kinds of events. >>>> >>>> -Olli >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/08/2010 12:39 PM, Dan Burnett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Group, >>>>> >>>>> This is the next of the requirements to discuss and >>>>> prioritize based on our ranking approach [1]. >>>>> >>>>> This email is the beginning of a thread for questions, >>>>> discussion, and opinions regarding our first draft of >>>>> Requirement 13 [2]. >>>>> >>>>> Please discuss via email as we agreed at the Lyon f2f >>>>> meeting. Outstanding points of contention will be discussed >>>>> live at an upcoming teleconference. >>>>> >>>>> -- dan >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Oct/0024 >>>>> >>>>> .html >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Oct/att- >>>>> >>>>> 0001/speech.html#r13 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave >>> House, 76 Buckingham >> Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: >> 3977902 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave >> House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in >> England Number: 3977902 > > >
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 15:09:54 UTC