Thread Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesandequivalent facilitation
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jan 20 2007 6:35 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: firstname.lastname@example.org: "Re: General Issues: Speech interfaces and equivalent facilitation"
- Previous message in thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesandequivalent facilitation"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I think equivelant fascilitation applies here. If it doesn't
comppletely replace at or if there is not support so that it can, it
is not accessible. I might let it slide on braille depending on what
it is to be used for but I stress might because one example I can see
that fits here is an audio player but if we use daisy as the format/
standaard, we need braille since daisy provides for searchable text.
On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
"Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some applications
seemingly replacing the need for screen readers. This typically is not
equivalent to the functionality of screen readers and normally does not
interface with refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least one mode of
operation and information retrieval that does not require user vision
(assuming other necessary features such as keyboard operation, etc.)."
If a speech interface is provided, and does provide control of "all"
functionality in an equivalent fashion, seems to me like it is an
acceptable solution for some. I think standards could be written that
say things, for example that are included in the digital talking book
player standards, that relate to allowing the user to change voice rate,
stop speech in a specific time period, repeat speech upon demand, and
some other minimum requirements. For example if the product has a
speech interface added on that allows control, but the interface doesn't
allow the statement to be repeated, it would be easy to miss important
control data and mishandle the application verbally. So, good idea in
my opinion--I think standards are needed for when this alternate or
solution is provided to ensure it really does work for various sets of
people with disabilities.
A more difficult question may be where would this kind of standard fit
into our structure at the end of the day, "speech user interfaces for
software, anything, web, phones, or what?".
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:12 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech interfaces
Thoughts on this topic?
- Next message in Thread: email@example.com: "Re: General Issues: Speech interfaces and equivalent facilitation"
- Previous message in Thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesandequivalent facilitation"