Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Develops Technology To Talk To Web

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the dr-spaetzo-gets-a-job dept.

83

ProgramErgoSum writes to tell us that IBM's Indian-based research arm is trying to bring a new dimension to web interaction through voice interaction on your mobile phone. Developing a new protocol, Hyperspeech Transfer Protocol (HSTP), the hope is to allow users to talk to the web and get a response. Without more explanation I'm hoping this goes about as far as the gopher web. "The spoken web is a network of voice sites or interconnected voice and the response the company got in some pilot projects in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and the kind of innovations that people came up with were just mind-boggling, Gupta said. "

cancel ×

83 comments

eat my asshole curry munchers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215097)

fp

Interesting... (2, Informative)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215143)

but unnecessary. Instead of trying to create a new standard, what's wrong with sending an http request, and receiving an rtp response. Let the device do the text-to-speech conversion, like they do already.

I just can't imagine an entirely new protocol being adopted when it is already very possible using existing technologies...

Re:Interesting... (2, Interesting)

Deag (250823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215261)

The text to speech bit could do with some sort of markup though. Despite the author's guild claim to the contrary, text to speech is very machine like and monotonous, it could do with some tags like <scared> or <angry> to get some emotion going.

Re:Interesting... (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215695)

So what would happen id it hit a blink or marquee tag?

Re:Interesting... (2, Funny)

Deag (250823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215723)

ah easy, blink would be said extremely quickly, whole sentence in one second. Marquee would be a loud street salesman sort of tone.

Re:Interesting... (2, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216479)

text to speech is very machine like and monotonous, it could do with some tags like <scared> or <angry> to get some emotion going.

I believe the tag names, respectively, are going to be <enron> and <balmer>

Re:Interesting... (3, Informative)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215463)

Agreed. Especially since CSS has supported aural media (including multiple voices or generic speaker categories like "child", "male", "female" for different speakers in a story, for instance) for quite a while now.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Deag (250823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215567)

Ah so it does exist.

Is this widely used? I will confess to not knowing about it.

Any example out there?

Re:Interesting... (3, Informative)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215699)

There's a good (and recent) summary of the situation here:

http://lab.dotjay.co.uk/notes/css/aural-speech/ [dotjay.co.uk]

If you want an open source solution, you should probably look to the firevox (as opposed to firefox etc.) community. Otherwise, Opera is probably your best bet. As far as usage goes: I think it's still pretty limited, but definitely worth considering for future projects that need (or can benefit from) such features, rather than some proprietary solution. Especially since it's a relatively small amount of extra work that can be overlaid onto existing web pages.

Re:Interesting... (1)

soul_on_fire2001 (587336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27218959)

If you want an open source solution, you should probably look to the firevox (as opposed to firefox etc.) community.

You meant to say "as different from".

Re:Interesting... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27221465)

Granted, "as different from" might be technically better. Personally I quite like the visual image that "as opposed to" creates, and I don't see why you can't set up one browser in opposition to another for comparison. Are you SURE your version is the only correct one of the two? If so, why?

Re:Interesting... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27221489)

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at now. If I was trying to say that firevox is not firefox, then yes, "as different from" makes sense. And that WAS part of my reasoning for mentioning firefox. However, I also find it strange that firefox doesn't support these standards, since it's pretty much famed as the more standard browser choice (over IE at least), so another thing I was trying to get across is that firefox is not an option.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27221757)

You meant to put that period inside the quotation marks.

Re:Interesting... (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27222751)

Which is a rule, but which is very very stupid, and just looks wrong to every human I have ever asked anyway. So fix your rules already. I have.

Re:Interesting... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27231989)

The format you're using is now recognised, and considered correct when punctuation matters (such as in technical docs). It's called "logical quoting", I believe.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27217437)

Why not invent SHYFSTSP?

Shaking your head from side to side protocol.

lol, i hate indians too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215151)

They are sneaky and reek of curry.

Maybe not all of them... but there are at least as many sneaky curry shitters as there are lazy niggers.

We have this now, from Microsoft (1, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215163)

Microsoft bought TellMe (1-800-555-TELL), which does some of that. (Call it from a cell phone; the behavior on land lines is entirely different. From a cell phone, you can get movie listings, driving directions, etc.; on a land line, all it does is phone directories.)

Re:We have this now, from Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215233)

Right, well, since that number doesn't follow NANP standards and also contains the fictional "555" Exchange code I will say "ha-hah" to you good sir.

Re:We have this now, from Microsoft (1)

Rayban (13436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216073)

Ha-hah-hah! ohh...

http://www.tellme.com/you/faqs [tellme.com]

"Yes! 1-800-555-TELL is a toll-free number you can call from any phone."

Re:We have this now, from Microsoft (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216169)

555 numbers are starting to be assigned now. Only 555-0100 to 555-0199 are reserved for fictional use anymore. And TELL ME appears to be a real operation.

Dr. Doolittle claims prior art . . . (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215169)

Talk to the animals? Talk to the Web? Same difference.

OS/2 voice recognition (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216565)

I remember that IBM shipped a voice recognition system built into OS/2 v3, which worked with the Workplace Shell and with most applications. You had to speak to it in a slightly clipped way (words just separated), but it worked quite well. It did not need training (at least for my lousy accent) unless I used specialized vocabulary, but with training it could even cope with really horrible enunciation (my drunken buddies). That was in the days of the i386 and primitive SoundBlaster digitization, so I would hope that techniques have improved since, such as being able to parse words which are run together.

I bought some Indian CD-R once (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215173)

They smelled of curry

Hello Computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215183)

Find me some porn. KTHX.

NO (0, Flamebait)

snarfies (115214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215195)

Do you know what I hate more than calling a phone number and talking to semi-incomprehensible Indians?

Calling a number and having a machine INSIST I speak to it like a person.

I just repeatedly jab "0" until I reach something that can pass a Turing test.

Whether Indians who don't understand English beyond what's written down for them counts is debatable.

Re:NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215601)

Just imagine how the Indians feel talking to an enraged techie lunatic...

Re:NO (2, Funny)

revlayle (964221) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215661)

NOTE TO SELF: code future IVR system to respond to "*6", instead, for operator requests.

Re:NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216757)

Now that's surprisingly racist

Re:NO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27221519)

Way to inject your prejudice into a discussion about the spoken web. If you have RTF summary, it talks about a voice version of the WWW and not about call centers, you asshat.

Achilles says "No." (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215197)

Voice tech has an achilles heel: It's called accents. Most voice software works great for english-speaking people in the midwestern United States. But if you have an accent and have ever tried to "interact" with one of those voice mail systems that are speech-activated rather than touch-tone, the words unholy rage doesn't begin to describe the frustration of listening to a soothing voice repeatedly saying "I'm sorry, I do not understand your request" and then endlessly repeats the menus. Pressing '0', if you're wondering, will only make the system remind you that it (a) only speaks english and (b) while it can process touch tones, it won't -- because it hates you.

And IBM wants to bring this unique hell to the web? What kind of sadists are these people? As if websites that require Flash and the horrors that server-side Java unleashed wasn't enough...

Re:Achilles says "No." (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215329)

Voice tech has an achilles heel: It's called accents. Most voice software works great for english-speaking people in the midwestern United States.

If that's true of this software developed by IBM's Indian research arm and pilot tested in Andhra Pradesh [wikipedia.org] and Gujarat [wikipedia.org] , then I suspect it will also handle a lot of other English-speaking people.

But if you have an accent

As if English-speaking people from the midwestern United States don't.

Re:Achilles says "No." (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215805)

If that's true of this software developed by IBM's Indian research arm and pilot tested in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, then I suspect it will also handle a lot of other English-speaking people.

It can handle accents but it must be programmed in; Voice recognition software is significantly about heuristic algorithms -- guessing what accent, doing differential analysis, etc. But it also succeeds because it often limits itself to yes/no or multiple choice answers -- that is, the answer must be one of those presented. Voice recognition that tries to do free-form recognition has an unacceptably high error rate. Therefore, it doesn't matter where it's tested, or what language. It only reaches a passable level of reliability when it is purpose-built for environment and language, and the answers are discrete.

As if English-speaking people from the midwestern United States don't.

English-speaking with a midwestern accent is generally viewed as the most easily understood amongst all english accents; And this accent is the one used for many (if not most) television reporters, voice recordings intended for mass audience, etc. Most other accents are defined by how they mangle certain syllables.

Re:Achilles says "No." (2, Insightful)

lennier (44736) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216567)

"English-speaking with a midwestern accent is generally viewed [BY AMERICANS] as the most easily understood amongst all english accents; And this accent is the one used for many (if not most) [AMERICAN] television reporters, voice recordings intended for mass [AMERICAN] audience, etc. Most other accents are defined [BY AMERICANS] by how they mangle certain syllables."

Fexed thaht fah yah.

Re:Achilles says "No." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27219407)

noice!

Re:Achilles says "No." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27226813)

Now where did I pahk the cah?

Re:Achilles says "No." (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216309)

But if you have an accent

As if English-speaking people from the midwestern United States don't.

As if English-speaking people from England don't.

Re:Achilles says "No." (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27220903)

No software program has ever been proven to be able to understand a drunken Scot.

Re:Achilles says "No." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216665)

Since it has been tested in Andhra Pradesh, I hope it supports Telugu language [wikipedia.org] , the language spoken by most Indian software professionals and the largest spoken Dravidian language.

Re:Achilles says "No." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215385)

Most voice recognition software doesn't work very well if you're from the midwestern US either. I think most speech synth and recognition software is actually a combo of East Coast US, Canadian, and Finnish accents. Also, I wonder how they "train" the software - a group of 10 office weenies speaking as robotic as possible?

Re:Achilles says "No." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215531)

Microsoft tech support has a very sophisticated speech synth platform. The last 3 times I had to re-activate some customers Windows XP installs, I did so in less than 10 mins without ever: having to repeat myself, enter alpha-numerics on the phone, or talk to a live human being from India.

Re:Achilles says "No." (1)

the_brobdingnagian (917699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27218031)

You think 10 minutes for reactivation is fast? Most of my OS installs are done in about 10 minutes and Windows needs 10 minutes just to ask for permission to install. I can't understand why so much people find this acceptable.

Horrors of Server-Side Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215487)

That's interesting...I'm guessing you work on small-scale web applications. J2EE isn't for everything, but sometimes it is the only tool for the job.

Re:Horrors of Server-Side Java? (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216675)

"J2EE isn't for everything, but sometimes it is the only tool for the job."

Sort of like thermonuclear weaponry, right? Massive, utterly impractical to ever deploy, makes no discrimination between friend and foe, but for 'strategic applications'...

Re:Achilles says "No." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215521)

Most voice software works great for english-speaking people in the midwestern United States.

Of course Achilles wouldn't like that system. He spoke Greek.

Re:Achilles says "No." (1)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216077)

Yeah but even if the system supported Greek he would be screwed just the same 'cause he spoke an archaic version of Ionic Greek. [wikipedia.org]

not just accents (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215731)

Most voice software works great for english-speaking people in the midwestern United States. But if you have an accent ...

I have a southeastern Michigan accent - essentially the same as the "standard radio/TV accent" (Cincinnati OH). It was chosen for that service because it makes ALL the American English phonetic distinctions (vs. for example an east-coast accent which merges "l" and "r" making Kennedys sound like they're saying Fidel heads "Cuber") and because it's intelligible to speakers of ALL the American English accents.

You'd think that a modern voice recognition system should be able to handle THAT, at least? Especially if it came in a vehicle manufactured in Detroit, right?

Just bought a For T150 Lariat. Great truck. Came with the "link" system by Microsoft. Does navigation, cellphone hands-free by bluetooth, ... Has voice recognition for control to keep hands on the wheel.

Darn thing has a horrible time recognizing my voice, even when I'm speaking carefully and clearly. (For instance: Tried to call home yesterday and it called the "identify a piece of music" number that Sony-Ericsson threw into my cellphone's phone directory. Doesn't ask for confirmation before making a call, either.)

Re:not just accents (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216389)

was chosen for that service because it makes ALL the American English phonetic distinctions (vs. for example an east-coast accent which merges "l" and "r" making Kennedys sound like they're saying Fidel heads "Cuber")

Merging "l" and "r" is kind of tangential to that, since the Carribean nation at issue isn't called "Cubal", either.

Re:not just accents (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27219421)

Oops. Meant "ah" and "arr".

(Thanks for the catch. Jumped tracks onto Engrish momentarily.)

Re:Achilles says "No." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216513)

Pressing '0', if you're wondering, will only make the system remind you that it (a) only speaks english and (b) while it can process touch tones, it won't -- because it hates you.

That is the truth.

In addition, those systems are keyed to respond to similar sounds, they don't do very good actual speech to text.

For example, with my cell phone company, I can call and say the following to pay my bill:
"I enjoy gay sex threesomes"
"Fuck your mother"
"Eat my Ass"

And then enter my account number & payment information.

Re:Achilles says "No." (1)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27217349)

That's annoying, but try working your way through one of those systems with kids running through the room halfway through the call (or, having your parents yell down to the basement, depending on your situation). Accent doesn't matter, the system will think you just agreed to buy something.

I wonder (5, Funny)

rootnl (644552) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215221)

User: fap fap fap fap fap
Web: Oh Yea baby!
User: fap fap fap fap fap
Web: Wow that's it yea!

Re:I wonder (1)

peater (1422239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27222443)

User: Porn Web: I'm feeling lucky

a network of voice sites... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215255)

If you have ever been bounced from one customer service number to another, press 1.

Sorry, I did not understand your answer.

Waste of Bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215319)

How is this in any way superior to voice recognition that happens on the phone and is translated into text or actions there instead of at a remote web server?

Re:Waste of Bandwidth (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215825)

When you're talking about millions of terminals vs. relatively few servers, the "dumb" terminals are cheap. Also, doing good voice recognition requires beefy hardware -- probably, ideally, DSP/GPU accelerator boards or a google-style huge cluster of commodity PCs. Finally, for blind users, but also for others, listening to even the best synthesized voice gets tiring/grating after a while. It's much nicer to listen to good speech from a professional narrator, over even a normal human speaker, much less a "good" voice synth.

I still think it'd be better for everyone if they worked on supporting a globally usable standard that could be applied on any machine, like CSS aural media, though. TTS and voice recog is probably the future anyway, might as well start taking it seriously now.

Re:Waste of Bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216041)

But phones already have decent dsp's so they can efficiently compress voice traffic. That's why every single phone available has the fairly simple extension of voice activated dialing. It's all software at that point.

Re:Waste of Bandwidth (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216317)

That's true, but recognising individual words against a table of individual words is a much less complex task than groking a sentence for grammar and essential concepts, and checking those against a huge dictionary or concept map for the difference between 'hey man' and 'hay, man', in real-time, with a long, on-going speech, given some background noise from passers-by. That said, just about any voice recog would probably come up with something better than txtspk :)

Is this gonna be like CB radio? (4, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215387)

Breaker breaker, good buddy! Thanks for visiting my online speakin' site! My handle is: The Delta Lady! If ya'll wanna visit my cousin Watts' site, just say "bacon." If'n'ya wanna hear a special Christmas story about varmints pullin' Santa's sleigh, say "Merry Chris'mas, ya'll!"

Re:Is this gonna be like CB radio? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 5 years ago | (#27222331)

It's "y'all", as in, a contraction of "you all". It's a second-person plural pronoun in English. The langauge lacks a way of telling if one is speaking to a single person or group of people - rather primitive, in that just about every other langauge on the planet has this innovation. If you're going to ridicule others' language, at least ridicule it correctly. Thanks!

Re:Is this gonna be like CB radio? (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226371)

Fuck ya'll, I'm from Texas and I guarantee you my grasp of "langauge" is farly superious to yours!

Re:Is this gonna be like CB radio? (1)

St. Alfonzo (1393181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226921)

We have a very simple way of telling what someone means when he says 'you': context. It is really not that hard.

Summary title capitalization. (-1, Offtopic)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215647)

"To" is not supposed to be capitalized in a title. And people wonder why "computer people" can't write. (of course, that's the "stereotypical" computer person, but you know... the worst possible case is usually chosen for the stereotype ;))

April 1st (1)

fran6gagne (1467469) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215653)

April first is coming soon, that sounds like a pretty april foul to me.

Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27215659)

People have been working on this sort of thing for a while now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeechWeb

Is Patronising India Really Good for Business? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215781)

From the RTFA,

Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and the kind of innovations that people came up with were just mind-boggling, Gupta said.

Is IBM saying that these people from Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat are mind boggled when they are introduced to "Phone Mazes From Hell?" That the rest of us have had to endure from the Faceless Ones [wiktionary.org] for years? Or is Gupta saying that these noble folk were mind boggled when they hear voices respond back on a cell phone?

Re:Is Patronising India Really Good for Business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216193)

Read it once again, it says:
"... kind of innovations that people came up with were just mind-boggling".

Defeats the purpose of the internet (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | more than 5 years ago | (#27215851)

Isn't the purpose of the internet to AVOID having to talk to people?

Re:Defeats the purpose of the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216113)

Isn't the purpose of the internet to AVOID having to talk to people?

Yes, but under the assumptions that you can read and own a device with a web browser.

That leaves out billions that would like to conduct transactions via the web using voice over a mobile phone.

HSTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216031)

Why is an entire protocol needed for this?
Speech recognition + API + web = profit, this looks like quite an overblown effort, even from IBM

Re:HSTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27216293)

Because lazy programmers and marketing types have taken over and fucked up the web. Have you ever tried to surf from a mobile phone? Even in 3g areas it sucks balls. I can call someone and have them look up the information faster. Hell, Skyfire (or whatever it's called) can send you a goddamned _image_ of a page that's mostly text faster than you can download the 200 individual parts and render it in Opera mobile.

No, the web has been totally fucked over by lazy programmers who feel that it's necessary to "build suspense" by requiring you download a quarter Meg of style sheets and formatting so they can display - maybe - 2kB of textual information.

And get a haircut. Damnit.

sounds like their Opera plugin on Zaurus 5600 (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216301)

IBM had an addon or something for the Opera browser which was shipped with the Sharp Zaurus 5600 which took in speech and did recognition against web page stuff. I remember their demo having the ability to take in spoken orders for Pizza and flight reservations right into the browser. It worked pretty good but background noise was an issue from my experience.

It never went anywhere on the Zaurus mostly because the Zaurus didn't take off. Sharp attempted to build an open source software platform but didn't think those developing for the Zaurus would also want to use the Zaurus with their Linux computers.

But it sounds like IBM is digging this stuff back out and with Linux on more and more phones it makes it easier to do.
configure --target-platform Android; make multimodal

LoB

Can You Hear Me Now? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216357)

What good is any of this HTSP tech if the computer still can't parse speech into text or symbols? Speech recognition doesn't really work, not accurately enough for mass use on Web PCs or mobile phones. Even speech synthesis, a much easier problem, isn't really that great.

I smell another IBM submarine patent farm, not an actual "innovation factory".

After a slashdotting... (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 5 years ago | (#27216515)

We are experiencing unusually high call volume. Your estimated hold time is 345987 minutes.

plus 1, 7roll) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27217247)

Hey doofus... (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 5 years ago | (#27217271)

...wait until you get older and have to try and see that crap on those tiny screens with your old quadfocal eyes and try to type on them teeny designed for Japanese kids keyboards with your stiff fingers, then you *might* get a clue why a spoken way to interact with the web on those devices might be useful. I'd like that on my desktop, let alone some Lilliputian cellphone.

Now, don't get off my lawn, see that mower? Yank that cord and start pushing it and work off some of those cheetos!

Yu0 fail it?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27218547)

It's not Dr. Spaetzo (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27218899)

It's Dr. Sbaitso. As in "Sound Blaster Acting Intelligent Text to Speech Operator". Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Inevitable Response..... (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 5 years ago | (#27221067)

Headline:

"IBM Develops Technology To Talk To Web "

Following-Up Story Headline:

"Web Talks Dirty To IBM"

On /. now, on Wikipedia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27221827)

since August 2008: World Wide Telecom Web [wikipedia.org]

I saw those guys at a conference (1)

benob (1390801) | more than 5 years ago | (#27227715)

I saw a presentation at SLT'08 (http://slt2008.org/Papers/viewpapers.asp?papernum=1191) about that voice web. Contrary to what slashdot readers seem to think, this is not an extension of the current www. They want to start over with speech only (input and output). It is designed so that people who can't read can use it, and they don't need the latest smartphone, just a regular phone. URLs would be replaced by phone numbers that you would dial. Then you would be able to listen to whatever "podcast" which would give you other numbers to dial. There is a big cultural difference with the www. They also intend to do speech-controlled basic navigation. However, they didn't give many details about the kind of technology involved, nor how to handle basic navigation problems like the equivalent of scrolling through a page or how to manage bookmarks, mark already visited sites and "download" stuff.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...