

Re: [Proposal] Edits to text about speech output limitations.

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:20:31 -0400
Message-ID: <00d601c103f5$3a7e2160$2cf60141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>

I like your proposal but it seems open to an enterpritation that speech
output may be given the same weight in controll exercise as visual
output and there are too few checkpoints to support that view if I
understand correctly.  I tried to rework the proposal to capture this
but failed.  I'll keep trying unless someone comes up with a reason why
I should not or one that does.

Perhaps what is needed is the source made clear.  speech output might be
the result of adding an assistive technology to a system and therefore
the pages are spoken.  I think that "rendered synthesized speech" is
different from the output of the application being turned into speech as
a result of additional software or hardware or processing.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:58 PM
Subject: [Proposal] Edits to text about speech output limitations.


Based on comments [1] from Richard Premack, I'd like to propose the
following edits to section 1.3: "Known limitations of this document"

  1) Braille. This document does not address braille rendering.
  2) Synthesized speech. This document includes few checkpoints
     related to synthesized speech output (in guideline 5).

  Output modalities. This document does not address braille rendering.
  Many of the requirements of this document are generic enough to apply
  to any modality (including braille). Some requirements are specific
  to visual output and others specific to speech output.


 a) I created an "output modalities" entry to be parallel to the
   "input modalities" entry. They should be side by side.

 _ Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0003.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010622/intro.html#limitations
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 15:21:28 GMT
