- From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:36:28 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
What if we add this as an item in the testing section (Appendix A)? Something along the lines of: Use a spell checker. A person reading a page with a speech synthesizer may not be able to decipher the synthesizer's best guess for a word with a spelling errror. However, upon hearing the garbled word, a person could read the word letter by letter and hopefully decipher the intended word. This increases cognitive load and time to read the page. Spell checking is a good practice, so including it in Testing keeps it out of the guidelines, but points people in the direction we would like them to head. thoughts? --w At 03:52 AM 10/26/98 , you wrote: >OK. Priorety 3. >We should allow though to include misspelt words in ><META name="keywords"> for our illetrate readers who look us up >in search engines. > >Best, >Nir. > >> And, by the way, I do believe we _should_ mention spell-checking. >> >> This is another case of a general good practice, where failing to >> follow the practice has more severe impacts on the text-to-speech >> user than on the visual user. Someone reading with their eyes >> can usually pick out the spelling error or will in fact read >> right through it without perceiving the error. But someone >> depending on text to speech will get garbage for a word with a >> spelling error. This heightened vulnerability to something that >> otherwise is a minor nuisance _should be mentioned_. >> >> Al >> >> PS: This is a "do as I say, not as I do." One can find ample >> evidence of this effect among the perplexed readers of my >> unchecked email <wince>. >
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 1998 10:36:47 UTC