- From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:22:20 +0100
- To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Cc: "Raj(Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Satish S <satish@google.com>, Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI)" <dd5826@att.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
A consistent user experience is not the same as an identical user experience. For example, user agents render web pages using varying window sizes and pixel densities. /Bjorn On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote: > All default recognizers must return the same results/timings with the same > input waveform? All default synthesizers should return the same samples on > the same input SSML? > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Raj(Openstream) [mailto:raj@openstream.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:57 PM > To: Satish S; Patrick Ehlen > > Cc: Deborah Dahl; Young, Milan; DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI); > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > Subject: Re: Overview paragraph > > > > Yes..I agree with Satish's point...any application that desires to leverage > advanced/specific features > > of an ASR, cannot be guaranteed to be portable..within the scope our > spec..and applications > > that use the default ( LCD ?) recognizer ( not sure if this is what Dan D > had in mind, by saying > > "simple" applications ) should be portable and have consistent user > experience with conforming > > browser/clients. > > > > --Raj > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Satish S > > To: Patrick Ehlen > > Cc: Deborah Dahl ; Young, Milan ; DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI) ; > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:38 PM > > Subject: Re: Overview paragraph > > > > As an express goal, perhaps we should clearly state that applications that > use the default/built-in recognizer should be portable across all browsers > and speech engines. Beyond that, if the web app chooses to use a particular > engine by specifying a URL it seems ok to rely on extended/additional > capabilities provided by that engine. > > Cheers > Satish > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com> > wrote: > > Deborah is right that not all speech engines will have the same > capabilities, but we should strive to provide general parameterizations of > the potential capabilities wherever possible. Otherwise engine providers > will need to add their own extensions to the standard, and development will > get fractured across the lines of browser/engine, as we saw happen with > earlier Javascript XML handlers, etc. > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 8:27, "Deborah Dahl" > <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote: > >> I don't think we can reach the goal of applications being completely >> portable across speech engines because speech engines will always have >> different capabilities, and some of these are unlikely to be in the scope >> of >> our API. For example, engines will handle different languages, some >> engines >> will be able to handle larger grammars, some applications will make use of >> proprietary SLM's, and some applications won't be usable without an engine >> that has a certain level of accuracy. So I agree with Milan that the goal >> is not to standardize functionality across speech engines. I think we >> should >> just say " provide the user with a consistent experience across different >> platforms and devices" and leave it at that. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech- >>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Satish S >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:18 AM >>> To: Young, Milan >>> Cc: DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI); public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org >>> Subject: Re: Overview paragraph >>> >>> >> provide the user with a consistent experience across different >>> platforms and devices irrespective of the speech engine used. >>> >>> >>> This effort is not about standardizing functionality across speech >>> engines. The goal is speech application portability across the >>> browsers. Simple applications MAY be portable across speech engine >>> boundaries, but that's not a requirement. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd say the API proposal should aim for all applications to be portable >> across >>> speech engines. Starting with "may be portable" doesn't seem to fit the >> spirit >>> of the web. Any extensions for speech engine specific parameters and >>> results should be optional. >> >> >> > > -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 20:22:49 UTC