Thread Subject: Re: Amplification and Research
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: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 7:00 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Amplification and Research"
- Previous message in thread: Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul): "Re: Amplification and Research"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
> I have absolutely no idea whether our measures of perceived
> quality would correlate highly with intelligibility among
> listeners who are hard-of-hearing.
Yes, there needs to be research into mapping these metrics onto the
domain of hearing loss, either objectively or subjectively. But I
can't believe we'd be the first people asking for such a linkage.
> A bigger problem is that the voice quality in a VoIP system
> can vary tremendously depending on factors that are outside
> the vendor's control, and beyond the ability of a typical
> contract officer to assess. For example, an IP network that
> has excellent voice quality under normal conditions may have
> unacceptable quality when the system is heavily loaded with
> voice traffic
But aren't there criteria for this? Don't vendors perform all
kinds of loading tests? I don't think we're trying to break new
ground here. I'd be satisfied if we found a small set of metrics
that were both used by vendors and intelligible (!) to procurement
- Next message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Amplification and Research"
- Previous message in Thread: Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul): "Re: Amplification and Research"