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
