I know the quality of the voices doesn't matter for the majority of people (as they will not be using that feature), but for those who will be using it, it does matter. Besides, as I said, Apple advertices it as a major feature.
Yes, the VoiceOver functionality itself - not the voices. VoiceOver is not a text-to-speech feature (which has been there all the time) but an interface-to-speech feature.
Yes, the VoiceOver functionality itself - not the voices. VoiceOver is not a text-to-speech feature (which has been there all the time) but an interface-to-speech feature.
Correct, but it is dependant on the text-to-speech feature. If the speech quality is not good it drags VoiceOver down with it.
Correct, but it is dependant on the text-to-speech feature. If the speech quality is not good it drags VoiceOver down with it.
In the absolute sense, yes. However, it would have be dragged down way past Fred to wind up with the solutions that are out there currently.
If Apple gets a robust, complete system that uses the existing voices, they'll run away with the field. You have to see the crap that disabled people put up with to believe it, and then you have to see what the companies responsible charge for it.
The issue is not so much whether Apple fails to field a competing feature—even if the first iteration is glitchy, it'll still be better—so much as it's whether Apple not lives up to their own standards for integration, spit and polish.
I have two relatives that are blind and would want VoiceOver to work as well as possible. Most people don't take the handicapped population into account as a respectable computer using population.
I think OS X is the best operating system out there and it goes to show what Apple is willing to do in order to get it to work so nicely. With the OS becoming finely honed, perhaps it's time that Apple focus on features that could use improvement, such as it's speech technology. While many don't need to use it, it's because most use their eyes. We all are happy about the great monitors Apple offers and the fine resolutions. We could still be all using the 680x480 resolutions, and they would technically work and be enough to get all the users by. So while Apple has no problems helping out those of us with vision, I'm less than impressed with what they have done for the handicapped.
It's my hope that 10.4 will be the release when Apple decides it's time to fully address this issue, and give those people that need this technology the best they can get, rather than mediocre functionality. But I'm sure I'll catch hell for these comments as you all are able to read them on your nice sharp screens. Perhaps you ought to highlight it and have the computer read this to you. Apple is better than this, and we all know it, which is why we all love them. It's just time that Apple include the blind in the computing world and really improve the tools.
It's my hope that 10.4 will be the release when Apple decides it's time to fully address this issue, and give those people that need this technology the best they can get, rather than mediocre functionality. But I'm sure I'll catch hell for these comments as you all are able to read them on your nice sharp screens. Perhaps you ought to highlight it and have the computer read this to you. Apple is better than this, and we all know it, which is why we all love them. It's just time that Apple include the blind in the computing world and really improve the tools.
It looks like Apple took the time to do it right, from what I can see, and waited until OS X was at the point where they could easily add text-to-speech at the system level, where it was able to read the actual text being sent to the rendering engine instead of screen-scraping windows. That does mean that it's been a long wait, though, since system-wide antialiasing broke all the screen scrapers.
And for anyone thinking of giving Brian hell for his comments: Why should OS X be any less slick for, say, a blind user than for a sighted user? There are obstacles and issues, but Apple has a lot of bright people. The issue is fundamentally one of where their priorities are.
It will be interesting to see what they have. I did actually have both Fred and Vicki read my first post to this thread, and I notice that both of them pronounce "OS X" correctly ("oh ess ten"). So clearly Apple's done some work.
Comments
Originally posted by Power Apple
I know the quality of the voices doesn't matter for the majority of people (as they will not be using that feature), but for those who will be using it, it does matter. Besides, as I said, Apple advertices it as a major feature.
Yes, the VoiceOver functionality itself - not the voices. VoiceOver is not a text-to-speech feature (which has been there all the time) but an interface-to-speech feature.
Originally posted by JLL
Yes, the VoiceOver functionality itself - not the voices. VoiceOver is not a text-to-speech feature (which has been there all the time) but an interface-to-speech feature.
Correct, but it is dependant on the text-to-speech feature. If the speech quality is not good it drags VoiceOver down with it.
Originally posted by Power Apple
Correct, but it is dependant on the text-to-speech feature. If the speech quality is not good it drags VoiceOver down with it.
In the absolute sense, yes. However, it would have be dragged down way past Fred to wind up with the solutions that are out there currently.
If Apple gets a robust, complete system that uses the existing voices, they'll run away with the field. You have to see the crap that disabled people put up with to believe it, and then you have to see what the companies responsible charge for it.
The issue is not so much whether Apple fails to field a competing feature—even if the first iteration is glitchy, it'll still be better—so much as it's whether Apple not lives up to their own standards for integration, spit and polish.
I think OS X is the best operating system out there and it goes to show what Apple is willing to do in order to get it to work so nicely. With the OS becoming finely honed, perhaps it's time that Apple focus on features that could use improvement, such as it's speech technology. While many don't need to use it, it's because most use their eyes. We all are happy about the great monitors Apple offers and the fine resolutions. We could still be all using the 680x480 resolutions, and they would technically work and be enough to get all the users by. So while Apple has no problems helping out those of us with vision, I'm less than impressed with what they have done for the handicapped.
It's my hope that 10.4 will be the release when Apple decides it's time to fully address this issue, and give those people that need this technology the best they can get, rather than mediocre functionality. But I'm sure I'll catch hell for these comments as you all are able to read them on your nice sharp screens. Perhaps you ought to highlight it and have the computer read this to you. Apple is better than this, and we all know it, which is why we all love them. It's just time that Apple include the blind in the computing world and really improve the tools.
Originally posted by Brian Green
It's my hope that 10.4 will be the release when Apple decides it's time to fully address this issue, and give those people that need this technology the best they can get, rather than mediocre functionality. But I'm sure I'll catch hell for these comments as you all are able to read them on your nice sharp screens. Perhaps you ought to highlight it and have the computer read this to you. Apple is better than this, and we all know it, which is why we all love them. It's just time that Apple include the blind in the computing world and really improve the tools.
It looks like Apple took the time to do it right, from what I can see, and waited until OS X was at the point where they could easily add text-to-speech at the system level, where it was able to read the actual text being sent to the rendering engine instead of screen-scraping windows. That does mean that it's been a long wait, though, since system-wide antialiasing broke all the screen scrapers.
And for anyone thinking of giving Brian hell for his comments: Why should OS X be any less slick for, say, a blind user than for a sighted user? There are obstacles and issues, but Apple has a lot of bright people. The issue is fundamentally one of where their priorities are.
It will be interesting to see what they have. I did actually have both Fred and Vicki read my first post to this thread, and I notice that both of them pronounce "OS X" correctly ("oh ess ten"). So clearly Apple's done some work.