Re: Text-to-speech feature: a real help ?

yes that is a major item.

what ever you do you cannot "Break" what the user already has installed in 
their own equipment.

Bob

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:05:14 +0100
> From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Text-to-speech feature: a real help ?
> Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:06:03 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:53:07 +0100, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2012 14:46, Terrill Bennett wrote:
>>> I have to ask...
>>> 
>>> 1) If the user requires text-to-speech to understand your site, how did
>>> the user GET to your web site in order to benefit from this technology?
>>> ("Magic" is not an acceptable answer).
>>> 
>>> 2) If the user requires text-to-speech to understand your site, and
>>> since users spend most of their time on OTHER web sites... what do they
>>> use when they leave your site?
>>> 
>>> Answering these two questions will probably answer your original 
>>> question.
>> 
>> I have to agree with Terrill's sentiment here. I've been known to be quite 
>> critical of these sorts of site-specific tools (a particular pet hate of 
>> mine has been BrowseAloud in the past) - though I'd even include things 
>> like text size switchers and colour changers to the list, as they're again 
>> site-specific.
>> 
>> It's likely that users that need those sorts of tools have them installed 
>> on their machine already. The only use case that is then cited is "what 
>> about if they're not on their own machine...maybe in a library or an 
>> internet cafe, where they can't install anything" - which I'd still argue 
>> is then the responsibility of the library/cafe to provide assistive tech 
>> and relevant configuration options, rather than the burden being shifted 
>> onto each individual site.
>
> Broadly, I agree. Itis true that the user may not have such features 
> available because of their setup, but in general it is a terrible waste of 
> resources to provide all that for a single site. It would be better to push 
> manfacturers to do it so users have it in whatever environment they are 
> using.
>
> In really specific cases it might still be worthwhile - the answer to 
> question 1 might be "someone helped them get to the one thing they need", and 
> to question 2 "wish that the world put things you need where you really need 
> them"... but by and large it is a stopgap, and if it is done at the site 
> level not even a very good one.
>
> Another important consideration is what happens to users who already have the 
> facility they need. In general, it is important not to break the experience 
> for people who have done the sensible thing and got themselves a free voice 
> system, or platform/browser that offers them high contrast/zoom/keyboard 
> access to everything/whatever the individual in question really needs.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>
>> 
>> 
>>> At 09:17 AM 2/21/2012, Régine Lambrecht wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> do you have references on how impaired users consider text-to-speech
>>>> alternative, such as Readspeaker (http://www.readspeaker.com).
>>>> 
>>>> Is it a good feature to add to a page that *is already accessible* ?
>>>> Does it help impaired users or do they consider this negatively (maybe
>>>> because you can’t skip paragraphs or easily read again words, for
>>>> instance?) ?
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your input
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> *Régine Lambrecht
>>>> *E-fficiency Coordinator
>>>> Prevention Advisor
>> 
>> 
>
>
> -- 
> Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>    je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>
>