Re: [css3-speech] LC comment: voice-rate percentages

Hi Greg,

Regarding "COMMENT 1": I re-read the current specification prose, I re-read your suggested editorial changes, and I came to the conclusion that the current prose already addresses your concerns. We explicitly give an example for 50% (half the inherited speaking rate), and further below we even give an example for 120%. We also express the fact that the baseline rate to which the percentage applies is speech processor-dependent. However, there is a mistake/typo in the example: "multiplied by 1.2" is not "one and a half times the speaking rate". This needs to be fixed.

Regarding "COMMENT 2": I don't think it is the role of a CSS specification to provide authoring guidelines (even informatively). I will double-check with the more seasoned Working Group members, but I believe it is uncommon practice to advise authors in the way you suggest.

Please let us know whether this response is satisfactory.
Kind regards, Dan

On 1 Oct 2011, at 04:13, Gregory Rosmaita wrote:

> aloha!
> 
> in regards voice-rate percentage values, the LC draft of css3-speech
> states:
> 
> QUOTE
>   <percentage>
>          Only non-negative percentage values are allowed. This
>          represents a change relative to the given keyword value (see
>          enumeration above), or to the default value for the root
>          element, or otherwise to the inherited speaking rate (which may
>          itself be a combination of a keyword value and of a percentage,
>          in which case percentages are combined multiplicatively). For
>          example, 50% means that the speaking rate gets multiplied by
>          0.5 (half the value).
> UNQUOTE
> 
> COMMENT 1: if the "currently active" voice rate is represented by 100%,
> and from that "baseline" scaled up or down (depending upon whether one
> wants to increase or deecrease the rate) using positive percentage
> values ONLY, then that needs to be explicitly stated in the
> css3-speech recommendation.  while the 100% "baseline" concept is far
> from novel to those proficient with CSS, it is not an obvious or "self
> evident" convention, and therefore should be explicitly stated so as
> to eliminate confusion as to how positive percentages greater than
> 100% can be used to increase voice-rate and how positive percentages
> less than 100%, but greater than 0%, are used to decrease voice-rate.
> 
> SUGGESTED TEXT:
> 
> A value less than 100% slows down the voice-rate. Values of greater
> than 100% indicate an increase in voice-rate.  The actual rate of
> speech relative to the "currently active rate" of 100% is determined
> by the capacities of the speech engine being used.
> 
> 
> COMMENT 2. as an author and end user, i would be most comfortable using
> "voice-rate" to effect small-scale changes in voice rate that are
> neither disorienting nor painful for the end user to aurally process:
> 
>   body { voice-rate: inherit;
>      code { voice-rate: 90%; voice-stress: none;
> 	     speak-as: literal-punctuation; }
>      em { voice-rate: 110%; voice-stress: moderate; }
>      strong { voice-rate: 115%; voice-stress: strong; }
> 
> authors should also be cautioned against using rate and/or volume alone
> or in tandem to indicate a specific type of markup, as control over the
> rate and volume of speech and its relative values are EXTREMELY important
> user-defined settings, the bounds of which which are based upon the user's
> needs, experience, other abilities/disabilities, and the type of content
> being converted into speech.
> 
> thanks, gregory.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ACCOUNTABILITY, n. The mother of caution.
>                 -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>     Gregory J. Rosmaita, gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com
>      Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
>  Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus/
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 13:56:36 UTC