I agree that being able to capture and upload audio to a server would
be useful for a lot of applications, and it could be used to do speech
recognition. However, for a web app developer who just wants to
develop an application that uses speech input and/or output, it
doesn't seem very convenient, since it requires server-side
infrastructure that is very costly to develop and run. A
speech-specific API in the browser gives browser implementors the
option to use on-device speech services provided by the OS, or
server-side speech synthesis/recognition.

/Bjorn

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Diogo Resende <drese...@thinkdigital.pt> wrote:
> I missunderstood too. It would be great to have the ability to access
> the microphone and record+upload or stream sound to the web server.
>
> --
> D.
>
>
> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 10:04 -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Bjorn Bringert <bring...@google.com> wrote:
>> > I think that it would be best to extend the browser with a JavaScript
>> > speech API intended for use by web apps. That is, only web apps that
>> > use the speech API would have speech support. But it should be
>> > possible to use such an API to write browser extensions (using
>> > Greasemonkey, Chrome extensions etc) that allow speech control of the
>> > browser and speech synthesis of web page contents. Doing it the other
>> > way around seems like it would reduce the flexibility for web app
>> > developers.
>>
>> Hmm.. I guess I misunderstood your original proposal.
>>
>> Do you want the browser to expose an API that converts speech to text?
>> Or do you want the browser to expose access to the microphone so that
>> you can do speech to text convertion in javascript?
>>
>> If the former, could you describe your use cases in more detail?
>>
>> / Jonas
>



-- 
Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
Registered in England Number: 3977902

Reply via email to