On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Timwi wrote:
I guess I shouldn't have said this, because now everyone thinks that arguing that accents can be mutually unintelligible, is an argument against natural recordings and for text-to-speech synthesis.
I am glad you brought it up, as I believe it needs to be addressed.
When Atlanta Airport (Georgia) opened, with automated trains taking you out to the terminals, there was a requirement for public announcements telling you which terminal, stand clear, departing now, etc.
They started out with a pleasant local (Georgian) accent.
Complaints - sounded too provincial, International passengers, etc.
They changed it to a female announcer.
Complaints - people didn't pay enough attention, what was wrong with the previous one, etc.
They have ended up with an assertive, metallic, computer voice.
No complaints.
Things pro text to speech :-
* Immediately works with all Wikipedia content. * No problems with editing. * Uniformity, even if it is uniformly poor ..
I will leave the pro natural speech argument to others - after preparing my flame-proof underwear :-) I would also welcome input from people for whom English is not a first language.
Cheers, Andy!