We were discussing it with an association of blind people in Poland - and
they told us - that for them the most important thing is clear and logic
structure of the website - plain main text, menu/navigation in plain text
and descriptions of media in plain text. They are using their own free
text-to-speach software to which they are used to. Such software simply
reads everything on the screen in the same neutral way. So they don't need
any other tools for voice reading - if other websites provide it - they
usually do not use it. Maybe in some other languages the situation is
different - but it would be better to discuss it with relevant associations
before investing time and money for such solutions. Fortunately, Wikipedia
actually is quite text-to-speach friendly at the moment.
2015-01-24 23:21 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com>om>:
While human read articles are great they quickly
become out of date and are
available for only a fraction of our articles.
Why don't we have a "Listen" button beside our read button that when
clicked will read the article for the person in question?
There are 37 open source text-to-speech listed here
http://www.findbestopensource.com/tagged/text-to-speech. Some of them
support up to 50 languages. This of course would require the support of the
Wikimedia Foundation.
I guess we could also do it with a gadget initially. Thoughts?
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz