Re: R29. Web application may only listen in response to user action

One possibility for R24 is that the end user performs an action on page load
and from then on using continuous speech input they can interact with the
application in a hands-free mode. This could be a click on a button or some
other accessibility-friendly gesture.

Cheers
Satish


On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Deborah Dahl <
dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:

> I see a possible conflict between requiring user action to enable speech
> recognition and R24. "End user should be able to use speech in a hands-free
> mode" if "user action" means doing something that requires use of the
> hands.
> I think both requirements are important but satisfying them both might
> require some thought.
>
> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Satish Sampath
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:24 AM
> To: Bjorn Bringert
> Cc: Dan Burnett; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: R29. Web application may only listen in response to user
> action
>
> User experience studies have also shown that end users have got used to
> clicking away any popup dialogs that come up when they are browsing the
> web.. common ones include phishing/malware warnings, download notifications
> etc. This is one of the reasons why browser vendors are moving towards
> in-page notifications for some of these where applicable, and requiring
> explicit user action for others. So I think this is a good requirement to
> have.
>
> The other side of this is that the web page should not be allowed to
> automatically initiate speech input/audio capture via an API call.
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
> wrote:
> This requirement was motivated by privacy concerns. If the web
> application can start speech recognition at any time, it can eavesdrop
> on a user.
>
> An alternative to requiring user action would be to have a permission
> dialog of some kind. As far as I understand, browser implementors
> would not like a proliferation of permission dialogs annoying their
> users.
>
> /Bjorn
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:
> > Group,
> >
> > This is the first 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 29 [2].
> >
> > After our discussion and any modifications to the requirement, our goal
> is
> > to prioritize this requirement as either "Should Address" or "For Future
> > Consideration".
> >
> > -- 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/sp
> eech.html#r29
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bjorn Bringert
> Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
> Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
> Registered in England Number: 3977902
>
>
>