![]() | Speech-generating device has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from DECtalk was copied or moved into Speech_generating_device with [421039159 this edit] on March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Hello,
Can we reopen the "Speech generating device" against "voice output communication aid" conversation? The article seams to have been renamed quite early on - I confess until I found the page I'd never heard of such devices being called SGD's. I did a bit of checking - a Google Scholar search for "Speech generating device" gives me 403 hits whereas "voice output communication aid" gives me 512.
Now, this is pretty even, but the reason it starts to look a bit more important is that the article currently uses SGD to refer to devices that record and playback sounds and speech - they don't generate speech at all - In this case I think that the term is missleading...
Any comments? Failedwizard ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused... the searches seam to be for "voice output communication device" rather than "voice output communication aid" - I get 541 results with VOCA that way... [1] (and 436 for the books [2]). I might have got lost in the acronyms... This might be worth giving it another couple of months to see if anything unequivocal turns up... :/ Failedwizard ( talk) 23:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
As per the discussion in Augmentative and Alternative Communication I've duplicated the rate enhancement section on this page, in preparation for extending it with respect to VOCA devices over the next week or so.
Failedwizard (
talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've just boldly added a small section on producers of AAC devices - I'm quite unsure on this one about advertising and such and wanted to keep it as even as possible - would appreciate other opinions on this. I'll start to extend it in a little while - and if anyone knows any good sources for comparative use that would be great. Failedwizard ( talk) 13:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the process of moving the references into a notes&references type. Did about a third of them today, thought they are a little untidy. Will be moving though on them shortly. Failedwizard ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Shoudn't this article be Speech generating devices? The article is clearly not about a single type/make/model of device, there are a multitude of such devices. Roger ( talk) 13:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see more information in the captions of images. For most of the images the brand / model of device is avaliable, it should be surfaced. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MathewTownsend ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Hi,
This article looks very interesting. I will start the review soon. From what I can tell, looking it over, it seems to be quite well done! MathewTownsend ( talk) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is in good shape and I really enjoyed reading it. I made a bunch of very small changes, mostly of the grammar/spelling type, and added some links. Please feel free to change any mistakes I made. Especially with the linking - I was trying to help myself understand the article.
I have a few comments/questions:
Would it be ok to say "important for people who have limited means of talking" or "interacting verbally" instead of "communicating verbally" - just to dial down the use of communicating/communication?
"users of all abilities" - not clear what this means - perhaps "users with various abilities"? or "users with varying abilities"?
Could you give a little more information about the people, like Toby Churchill to give the reader a feel for the people that are using these devices and the experiences they face. Like what their disability is, how they got it, etc. Would it be appropriate to mention the Lightwriter?
How does eye pointing or scanning work? How do eyes provide input, or whatever happens?
"to reduced in size and weight," to be reduced? To become smaller and lighter?
"while increasing accessibility and capacities" - while becoming more accessible with increasing capacity ?? Capacity for what? Increasingly powerful? To access internet and such? Could be worded more clearly.
"utterances" - what does this mean? expressions? or messages? outputs? Further down there are some examples. Maybe it would be better to explain these up here also. Is it words, phrases, sentences?
Could you explain a little how switch access scanning works?
Why so much mention of the UK and no other country? Are they really in the forefront?
Unnecessary to have a footnote for each mention of Roger Ebert
Could this image be described more fully?
I may add a few more. Please feel free to contact me or ask questions (and to fix my mistakes!)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
While I think on - just looking at the criteria - do you still have any concerns with things like captions or OR? Not entirely sure were we are on the other aspects... Failedwizard ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
(Definition)
Speech generating devices (SGD), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate their needs. [1]
(summarize producers section')
Speech generating systems may be dedicated devices developed solely for AAC, or non-dedicated devices such as computers that run additional software to allow them to function as AAC devices. [2] [3]
(turns out this is part of the definition, should probably be moved up...)
SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions. [4]
(intended to summerize input methods, may have to change)
A variety of different input and access methods exist for users of varying abilities to make use of SGDs and the development of techniques to improve the available vocabulary and rate of speech production is an active research area. summerize output methods Speech generating devices can produce electronic voice output using speech synthesis or by digitized recording of natural speech. [5]
(summerize selection set and vocabulary)
The content, organisation, and updating of this vocabulary on a SGD is influenced by a number of factors, such at the user's needs and the contexts that the device will be used in. [6] Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings and be pragmatic in functionality. [7]
(summerize access methods and rate enhancement)
There are multiple methods of accessing messages on devices: directly, indirectly, and with specialized access devices, although the specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. [1] SGD output is typically much slower than speech, although rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output and as a result enhance the efficiency of communication. [8]
(summerize history')
The first known SGD was prototyped in 1960, and rapid progress in hardware and software development has meant that SGD capabilities can now be integrated into devices like smartphones. Notable users of SGDs include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert, and Tony Proudfoot.
Now - the issues I can see here are that the ording is not as one might have it, the defination is not all together, and input methods is not ideally summerized, so I propose the following as a lede:
Speech generating devices (SGD), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate their needs. [1] SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions. [9]
A variety of different input and display methods exist for users of varying abilities to make use of SGDs. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of utterances, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech generating devices can produce electronic voice output using by digitized recording of natural speech, or by speech synthesis, which may carry less emotional information but can permit the user to speak novel messages . [5]
The content, organisation, and updating of this vocabulary on a SGD is influenced by a number of factors, such at the user's needs and the contexts that the device will be used in. [6] The development of techniques to improve the available vocabulary and rate of speech production is an active research area. Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings and be pragmatic in functionality. [7]
There are multiple methods of accessing messages on devices: directly, indirectly, and with specialized access devices, although the specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. [1] SGD output is typically much slower than speech, although rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output and as a result enhance the efficiency of communication. [8]
The first known SGD was prototyped in 1960, and rapid progress in hardware and software development has meant that SGD capabilities can now be integrated into devices like smartphones. Notable users of SGDs include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert, and Tony Proudfoot.
Speech generating systems may be dedicated devices developed solely for AAC, or non-dedicated devices such as computers that run additional software to allow them to function as AAC devices. [2] [3]
How do you feel about that version?
Going by the TOC, the article covers the following:
1 History 2 Input methods 2.1 Fixed display devices 2.2 Dynamic display devices 2.3 Hybrid display devices 3 Output 3.1 Digitized speech 3.2 Synthesized speech 4 Selection set and vocabulary 4.1 Initial content selection 4.2 Automatic content maintenance 4.3 Ethical concerns 5 Access methods 6 Rate enhancement strategies 7 Producers 8 Notes 9 References
Do you feel the lede addresses the main topics? Will the reader know under what heading to look in the article for more information on topics mentioned in the lede? MathewTownsend ( talk) 18:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has been greatly expanded upon and is much improved compared to the past. Thanks for this are mainly to Failedwizard. However, I have some concerns about some aspects of the article, including its accuracy, completeness and verifiablity. I also concur with some of the concerns expressed by the GA reviewer MathewTownsend above, but which were not fully addressed before promotion to Good Article.
However, why do these precursors get described in so much detail, and the actual first SDG devices (likely the work of Eulenberg, Vanderheide) no mention at all? See this journal article for the details-- Poule ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on past experience, I am loath to comment here. However, I do think that a Good Article needs to be a "good article", and meet the criteria. Much of it is and does. However, even within the one section I've checked there have been significant problems, and I strongly feel the issues, and here and elsewhere in the article either need to be fixed or the GA status reexamined. This is with no criticism intended towards the GA reviewer, who can't be expected to know or understand all the content issues in such an article. How do you want to deal with this, Failedwizard? I'll leave it up to you. -- Poule ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I will take a look over the weekend and see if there is any way I can find consensus for any necessary remedial work and to address any concerns over the GA status. Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, my first concern is over the article as a whole:
I am of the opinion that an article titled "Speech generating device" should have all speech generating devices covered, not just those used by people with disabilities - something which is amply covered by the AAC article. Indeed I am starting to think that this article should only have a section on AAC with a link to the main and most of this article should be ported over there.
So here we have what I see as the three "main" articles:
I appreciate this could be a little contentious, but I am trying to be totally neutral here. Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
*"Beukelman and Mirenda define a selection set" Who are these people? This seems to be a weird way to open a section, and the article doesn't appear to ever clarify the matter.
More to come. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
So a rename happened recently as part of fallout from the FAC of stephen hawking - and this awoke an interest of mine - some time ago Poule and I disagreed about the name of the article (see top of the talk) - with me favouring VOCA, which is the more UK-term and Poule favouring SGD, which is the more US term - the overall result of the conversation appears to the casual user that one can the argument both ways using google :s.
Added to this where relevant issues like the earliest electronic AAC devices not actually generating speech (although they are clear ancestors - and sensible comments by ChaosDruid along the lines of (and I hope I don't misquote here) that one would expect an article on devices that generate speech to include all such devices (for example, my iPhone, most personal computers, and all manner of cute robots), which is really clearly not what the article is about. (we also have problems in that the devices are more and more likely to be an 'app' on something like an iPad - so it's not really the 'device' that's doing the business).
With that in mind I'd like to propose renaming the article to 'Electronic AAC devices', which is pretty much the thing it's talking about and frees us from quite a bit of the problems - it's nobody's first choice - but it does mean that the article isn't slanted to a particular country and isn't obliged to include all manner of other devices that are currently happy in their own articles. What do people think? Fayedizard ( talk) 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this. I oppose any name change. Why? because Wikipedia's policy about article naming says "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by". As I have demonstrated above and repeat below, this article's subject is most commonly called "Speech generating devices" in reliable sources over the past five years. It has nothing to do with what country/region a term comes from, but what is the most frequently used term, and if someone can demonstrate that VOCA, for example, now the most commonly used term in reliable sources I would support that too. But noone has. These devices are not most commonly called "electronic AAC devices". Indeed, as this book makes clear, electronic AAC devices are not equivalent to SDGs or VOCAs, because electronic AAC devices may not actually produce speech (e.g. Alphasmart) and some are purely input devices to computers, so that term would be frankly inaccurate. Fayedizard is correct that "AAC devices" isn't an appropriate name for this topic either, for exactly the reasons given.
Regarding Chaosdruid's suggestion that "speech generating device" should be about "all speech generating devices", and Fayedizards's comment that his Iphone could be described as a speech generating device. I also above did the research to show that in reliable sources the term "speech generating device" is used 99.5% of the time to refer to AAC devices, and only 0.5% of the time to refer to any other (e.g. robotics applications). In fact, any kind of search shows that most common meaning of this term is the AAC meaning, and there are very few, if any, use of this term in a robotic context [11] [12]. It doesn't seem that there is an overarching topic of speech generating devices to be discussed here.
Reliable sources and policy seem quite clear that for this topic "speech generating device" is the preferred title. Can I suggest that if people want to discuss things further, or propose other terms, they support their suggestions with evidence from reliable sources? This will help focus the discussion more efficiently. Poule ( talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So when I said "the overall result of the conversation appears to the casual user that one can the argument both ways using google :s" I was being quite serious - for example:
...so maybe google isn't all that helpful here.
Things that I take in particular for your post include " makes clear, electronic AAC devices are not equivalent to SDGs or VOCAs, because electronic AAC devices may not actually produce speech (e.g. Alphasmart)" - which appears to be an argument against the current name?
In any case - it is clear that this is a contested name and so should probably be done at the correct board - If we end up staying with the current title I'm happy to add the more general content as per ChoasDruid's suggestion - it's possible we might even be best merging with something like speech synthesis (it has the same guy in the main image after all) - I suspect this might be a time when wikipedia's best interest and the best interest of the AAC community are not necessarily in alignment. Fayedizard ( talk) 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Many apologies, I withdraw the rename suggestion. Fayedizard ( talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Voice banking page were merged into Speech-generating device on April 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Klbrain ( talk) 22:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
creating a new article about Voice synthesis software -- Ne0 ( talk) 13:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Beukelman2005Chap2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).MusselwhiteLouis1988
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).rate enhancement
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
![]() | Speech-generating device has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from DECtalk was copied or moved into Speech_generating_device with [421039159 this edit] on March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Hello,
Can we reopen the "Speech generating device" against "voice output communication aid" conversation? The article seams to have been renamed quite early on - I confess until I found the page I'd never heard of such devices being called SGD's. I did a bit of checking - a Google Scholar search for "Speech generating device" gives me 403 hits whereas "voice output communication aid" gives me 512.
Now, this is pretty even, but the reason it starts to look a bit more important is that the article currently uses SGD to refer to devices that record and playback sounds and speech - they don't generate speech at all - In this case I think that the term is missleading...
Any comments? Failedwizard ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused... the searches seam to be for "voice output communication device" rather than "voice output communication aid" - I get 541 results with VOCA that way... [1] (and 436 for the books [2]). I might have got lost in the acronyms... This might be worth giving it another couple of months to see if anything unequivocal turns up... :/ Failedwizard ( talk) 23:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
As per the discussion in Augmentative and Alternative Communication I've duplicated the rate enhancement section on this page, in preparation for extending it with respect to VOCA devices over the next week or so.
Failedwizard (
talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've just boldly added a small section on producers of AAC devices - I'm quite unsure on this one about advertising and such and wanted to keep it as even as possible - would appreciate other opinions on this. I'll start to extend it in a little while - and if anyone knows any good sources for comparative use that would be great. Failedwizard ( talk) 13:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the process of moving the references into a notes&references type. Did about a third of them today, thought they are a little untidy. Will be moving though on them shortly. Failedwizard ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Shoudn't this article be Speech generating devices? The article is clearly not about a single type/make/model of device, there are a multitude of such devices. Roger ( talk) 13:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see more information in the captions of images. For most of the images the brand / model of device is avaliable, it should be surfaced. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MathewTownsend ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Hi,
This article looks very interesting. I will start the review soon. From what I can tell, looking it over, it seems to be quite well done! MathewTownsend ( talk) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is in good shape and I really enjoyed reading it. I made a bunch of very small changes, mostly of the grammar/spelling type, and added some links. Please feel free to change any mistakes I made. Especially with the linking - I was trying to help myself understand the article.
I have a few comments/questions:
Would it be ok to say "important for people who have limited means of talking" or "interacting verbally" instead of "communicating verbally" - just to dial down the use of communicating/communication?
"users of all abilities" - not clear what this means - perhaps "users with various abilities"? or "users with varying abilities"?
Could you give a little more information about the people, like Toby Churchill to give the reader a feel for the people that are using these devices and the experiences they face. Like what their disability is, how they got it, etc. Would it be appropriate to mention the Lightwriter?
How does eye pointing or scanning work? How do eyes provide input, or whatever happens?
"to reduced in size and weight," to be reduced? To become smaller and lighter?
"while increasing accessibility and capacities" - while becoming more accessible with increasing capacity ?? Capacity for what? Increasingly powerful? To access internet and such? Could be worded more clearly.
"utterances" - what does this mean? expressions? or messages? outputs? Further down there are some examples. Maybe it would be better to explain these up here also. Is it words, phrases, sentences?
Could you explain a little how switch access scanning works?
Why so much mention of the UK and no other country? Are they really in the forefront?
Unnecessary to have a footnote for each mention of Roger Ebert
Could this image be described more fully?
I may add a few more. Please feel free to contact me or ask questions (and to fix my mistakes!)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
While I think on - just looking at the criteria - do you still have any concerns with things like captions or OR? Not entirely sure were we are on the other aspects... Failedwizard ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
(Definition)
Speech generating devices (SGD), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate their needs. [1]
(summarize producers section')
Speech generating systems may be dedicated devices developed solely for AAC, or non-dedicated devices such as computers that run additional software to allow them to function as AAC devices. [2] [3]
(turns out this is part of the definition, should probably be moved up...)
SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions. [4]
(intended to summerize input methods, may have to change)
A variety of different input and access methods exist for users of varying abilities to make use of SGDs and the development of techniques to improve the available vocabulary and rate of speech production is an active research area. summerize output methods Speech generating devices can produce electronic voice output using speech synthesis or by digitized recording of natural speech. [5]
(summerize selection set and vocabulary)
The content, organisation, and updating of this vocabulary on a SGD is influenced by a number of factors, such at the user's needs and the contexts that the device will be used in. [6] Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings and be pragmatic in functionality. [7]
(summerize access methods and rate enhancement)
There are multiple methods of accessing messages on devices: directly, indirectly, and with specialized access devices, although the specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. [1] SGD output is typically much slower than speech, although rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output and as a result enhance the efficiency of communication. [8]
(summerize history')
The first known SGD was prototyped in 1960, and rapid progress in hardware and software development has meant that SGD capabilities can now be integrated into devices like smartphones. Notable users of SGDs include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert, and Tony Proudfoot.
Now - the issues I can see here are that the ording is not as one might have it, the defination is not all together, and input methods is not ideally summerized, so I propose the following as a lede:
Speech generating devices (SGD), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate their needs. [1] SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions. [9]
A variety of different input and display methods exist for users of varying abilities to make use of SGDs. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of utterances, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech generating devices can produce electronic voice output using by digitized recording of natural speech, or by speech synthesis, which may carry less emotional information but can permit the user to speak novel messages . [5]
The content, organisation, and updating of this vocabulary on a SGD is influenced by a number of factors, such at the user's needs and the contexts that the device will be used in. [6] The development of techniques to improve the available vocabulary and rate of speech production is an active research area. Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings and be pragmatic in functionality. [7]
There are multiple methods of accessing messages on devices: directly, indirectly, and with specialized access devices, although the specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. [1] SGD output is typically much slower than speech, although rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output and as a result enhance the efficiency of communication. [8]
The first known SGD was prototyped in 1960, and rapid progress in hardware and software development has meant that SGD capabilities can now be integrated into devices like smartphones. Notable users of SGDs include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert, and Tony Proudfoot.
Speech generating systems may be dedicated devices developed solely for AAC, or non-dedicated devices such as computers that run additional software to allow them to function as AAC devices. [2] [3]
How do you feel about that version?
Going by the TOC, the article covers the following:
1 History 2 Input methods 2.1 Fixed display devices 2.2 Dynamic display devices 2.3 Hybrid display devices 3 Output 3.1 Digitized speech 3.2 Synthesized speech 4 Selection set and vocabulary 4.1 Initial content selection 4.2 Automatic content maintenance 4.3 Ethical concerns 5 Access methods 6 Rate enhancement strategies 7 Producers 8 Notes 9 References
Do you feel the lede addresses the main topics? Will the reader know under what heading to look in the article for more information on topics mentioned in the lede? MathewTownsend ( talk) 18:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has been greatly expanded upon and is much improved compared to the past. Thanks for this are mainly to Failedwizard. However, I have some concerns about some aspects of the article, including its accuracy, completeness and verifiablity. I also concur with some of the concerns expressed by the GA reviewer MathewTownsend above, but which were not fully addressed before promotion to Good Article.
However, why do these precursors get described in so much detail, and the actual first SDG devices (likely the work of Eulenberg, Vanderheide) no mention at all? See this journal article for the details-- Poule ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on past experience, I am loath to comment here. However, I do think that a Good Article needs to be a "good article", and meet the criteria. Much of it is and does. However, even within the one section I've checked there have been significant problems, and I strongly feel the issues, and here and elsewhere in the article either need to be fixed or the GA status reexamined. This is with no criticism intended towards the GA reviewer, who can't be expected to know or understand all the content issues in such an article. How do you want to deal with this, Failedwizard? I'll leave it up to you. -- Poule ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I will take a look over the weekend and see if there is any way I can find consensus for any necessary remedial work and to address any concerns over the GA status. Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, my first concern is over the article as a whole:
I am of the opinion that an article titled "Speech generating device" should have all speech generating devices covered, not just those used by people with disabilities - something which is amply covered by the AAC article. Indeed I am starting to think that this article should only have a section on AAC with a link to the main and most of this article should be ported over there.
So here we have what I see as the three "main" articles:
I appreciate this could be a little contentious, but I am trying to be totally neutral here. Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
*"Beukelman and Mirenda define a selection set" Who are these people? This seems to be a weird way to open a section, and the article doesn't appear to ever clarify the matter.
More to come. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
So a rename happened recently as part of fallout from the FAC of stephen hawking - and this awoke an interest of mine - some time ago Poule and I disagreed about the name of the article (see top of the talk) - with me favouring VOCA, which is the more UK-term and Poule favouring SGD, which is the more US term - the overall result of the conversation appears to the casual user that one can the argument both ways using google :s.
Added to this where relevant issues like the earliest electronic AAC devices not actually generating speech (although they are clear ancestors - and sensible comments by ChaosDruid along the lines of (and I hope I don't misquote here) that one would expect an article on devices that generate speech to include all such devices (for example, my iPhone, most personal computers, and all manner of cute robots), which is really clearly not what the article is about. (we also have problems in that the devices are more and more likely to be an 'app' on something like an iPad - so it's not really the 'device' that's doing the business).
With that in mind I'd like to propose renaming the article to 'Electronic AAC devices', which is pretty much the thing it's talking about and frees us from quite a bit of the problems - it's nobody's first choice - but it does mean that the article isn't slanted to a particular country and isn't obliged to include all manner of other devices that are currently happy in their own articles. What do people think? Fayedizard ( talk) 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this. I oppose any name change. Why? because Wikipedia's policy about article naming says "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by". As I have demonstrated above and repeat below, this article's subject is most commonly called "Speech generating devices" in reliable sources over the past five years. It has nothing to do with what country/region a term comes from, but what is the most frequently used term, and if someone can demonstrate that VOCA, for example, now the most commonly used term in reliable sources I would support that too. But noone has. These devices are not most commonly called "electronic AAC devices". Indeed, as this book makes clear, electronic AAC devices are not equivalent to SDGs or VOCAs, because electronic AAC devices may not actually produce speech (e.g. Alphasmart) and some are purely input devices to computers, so that term would be frankly inaccurate. Fayedizard is correct that "AAC devices" isn't an appropriate name for this topic either, for exactly the reasons given.
Regarding Chaosdruid's suggestion that "speech generating device" should be about "all speech generating devices", and Fayedizards's comment that his Iphone could be described as a speech generating device. I also above did the research to show that in reliable sources the term "speech generating device" is used 99.5% of the time to refer to AAC devices, and only 0.5% of the time to refer to any other (e.g. robotics applications). In fact, any kind of search shows that most common meaning of this term is the AAC meaning, and there are very few, if any, use of this term in a robotic context [11] [12]. It doesn't seem that there is an overarching topic of speech generating devices to be discussed here.
Reliable sources and policy seem quite clear that for this topic "speech generating device" is the preferred title. Can I suggest that if people want to discuss things further, or propose other terms, they support their suggestions with evidence from reliable sources? This will help focus the discussion more efficiently. Poule ( talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So when I said "the overall result of the conversation appears to the casual user that one can the argument both ways using google :s" I was being quite serious - for example:
...so maybe google isn't all that helpful here.
Things that I take in particular for your post include " makes clear, electronic AAC devices are not equivalent to SDGs or VOCAs, because electronic AAC devices may not actually produce speech (e.g. Alphasmart)" - which appears to be an argument against the current name?
In any case - it is clear that this is a contested name and so should probably be done at the correct board - If we end up staying with the current title I'm happy to add the more general content as per ChoasDruid's suggestion - it's possible we might even be best merging with something like speech synthesis (it has the same guy in the main image after all) - I suspect this might be a time when wikipedia's best interest and the best interest of the AAC community are not necessarily in alignment. Fayedizard ( talk) 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Many apologies, I withdraw the rename suggestion. Fayedizard ( talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Voice banking page were merged into Speech-generating device on April 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Klbrain ( talk) 22:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
creating a new article about Voice synthesis software -- Ne0 ( talk) 13:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Beukelman2005Chap2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).MusselwhiteLouis1988
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).rate enhancement
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).