- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:07:40 +1100
- To: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Cc: web@edd.ca.gov, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sorry, I certainly think that a high-quality voice that matches your experience of english is better than a mechanical voice. But it is almost always more expensive to produce (although you may have people donate the effort). There are people who are used to a particular version of english (including accent) and find that another accent is very difficult to understand. If you get used to your speech system's accent, it may be preferable to one that provides good modulation and interpretation as one expects from a human speaker. On the other hand when using speech to support understanding of text because of difficulty with reading there is often more value in high-quality speech than there is for people using speech synthesis to overcome vision impairment. Thanks for reminding us of that I guess I was thinking more in line with section 508 requirements (which tend to ignore the needs of people who have difficulty in reading such as those with learning and cognitive disabilities or Deaf people who use a sign language as their first language) since the focus suggested in the original mail of the thread seemed restricted to helping people with visual disabilites. cheers Chaals On Sunday, Feb 9, 2003, at 19:23 Australia/Melbourne, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > Ask children whether they prefer an audio tape by a well known and > good reader, or a screen reader, and you have you answer. > > The assumption that a mechanical reproduction of a voice is superior, > because the data is 'accessible' is misplaced. They are a separate and > useful activity. > -- Charles McCathieNevile charles@sidar.org Fundación SIDAR http://www.sidar.org
Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 00:08:07 UTC