[DECtalk] ESpeak/accessibility

[Blake Roberts]

I changed the subject when replying because the recent discussion 
on-list went far beyond the thread I had started. I myself find it 
beneficial to change subject line when discussions take new directions.


Don: I understand and agree with your point about needing to consider 
people with a variety of disabilities when developing products, 
including software. A solution for one person with a particular 
disability may not be the answer for someone with a similar or different 
disability. Example: text-to-speech can help blind people or someone 
with dyslexia, but those two people may use it to different extents.


Regarding ESpeak: I myself choose not to use it because, as a list 
member told me by phone some years ago who shall be nameless: "It sounds 
like crap!" However, I recognize and respect that some people choose to 
use ESpeak because the synthesizer meets their speed needs and/or they 
got use to it etc.


My point: I agree with Don about importance of considering the needs of 
as many people with disabilities as possible when designing something, 
hardware or software.


Blake




On 6/16/2021 3:07 PM, Don wrote:

> On 6/16/2021 8:57 AM, Piotr Machacz wrote:
>> That's not even the only problem with Espeak. The other serious issue 
>> which
>> makes it impossible to use for many projects is that it's GPL 
>> licensed. So even
>> if you were to fork it, made a much better sounding version on its 
>> basis, the
>> GPL license forces you to open-source all of your work as well which 
>> makes it
>> almost impossible to use for anything commercial.
>
> Actually, I plan on releasing everything as open source.  But, anything
> GPL would require me to insist that anyone USING my improvements would
> also be burdened with the GPL.
>
> My goal is to encourage my stuff to be used.  The more restrictions I
> impose on it -- or have forced on me to impose on others -- the less
> likely it is for someone to embrace it and the goals I'm trying to 
> achieve.
>
> And those *goals* are the important thing -- not a copyright on a piece
> of code or a patent on an idea!
>
>> So in the case of using it
>> with a bluetooth headset or any other hardware even if you got Espeak 
>> going on
>> it, you'd have to also completely open-source all the firmware for 
>> the device
>> which could open you up to a lot of serious problems.
>>
>> THat being said, I too would love to hear what you've been working 
>> on. ☺️
>
> There is a belief that you can design an "inclusive" device for no more
> cost/effort than you can design a device that excludes users with
> varied abilities/constraints.
>
> This is fantasy.  If it was true, then it would be done every day!
> You'd not need devices tailored for folks with different sets of
> abilities.  You'd be able to take advantage of the economies of
> scale (mass production) for EVERY type of user.
>
> Instead, you have portions of the user base that have to be
> addressed with SPECIALIZED products.  With smaller markets,
> those products tend to have higher costs (cost is what it
> takes to MAKE something).  And, often the needs of those
> users have higher "support" costs -- it's more expensive
> to sell a wheelchair than a motorized skateboard!  You
> can walk into a Walmart and buy a motorized board but would
> need to be FITTED for a wheelchair!
>
> These conspire to drive the PRICE of the item up (price is
> what you charge to SELL something).
>
> This makes the item harder to sell.  Which makes it even
> more expensive.
>
> Or, causes the product to be discontinued or the vendor
> to exit the market.
>
> So, you REALLY want to be able to sell the same device to
> EVERYONE -- instead of burdening one portion of the
> marketplace with a more costly version of The Same Product.
>
> One of the things hampering accommodating folks with other
> needs is the lack of tools to assist with those sorts of
> development efforts.  For example, you see all sorts of
> tools that help you draw pretty pictures on a screen...
> but nothing that makes it easy for you to express that
> same information audibly.  Or tactile.
>
> And, because of that, you don't have developers THINKING
> about how they are presenting their "output".  They
> spend more time thinking about colors and fonts and
> icons than the CONTENT that they are trying to convey.
>
> How many are even aware that many people can't tell red
> from green?  So, why pick red and green to signify stop
> and go?  Or, that many can't READ what's written on
> the screen due to vision problems?  Or, that those vision
> problems are different in, for example, folks with a
> congenital vision problem (like blind from birth) vs. those
> who have lost their vision from an accident or diabetic
> retinopathy.  Or, those in the process of losing their
> vision to macular degeneration?
>
> In other words, a braille display would be useless for
> grandma losing her vision to cataracts -- she's unlikely
> to ever invest the time in learning braille!
>
> Similarly, at advanced ages, how good would her hearing be?
>
> And, how do you convert a picture into words?
>
> How does a sighted paraplegic type on your keyboard?
>
> If you truly want something to be universally accessible,
> then you have to consider each of these potential users
> in the design of your user interface.  You can't just
> "bolt on" some sort of adapter (like a screen reader)
> and consider the problem solved!
>
> Speech is just one "output modality" that addresses some
> *portion* of the user base.  If you need a PC in order to
> create it, then you're now saddled with the cost and size
> of a PC before you even get started!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk