§13.16 IRC style - describe requirement rather than referring to IRC [RAUR]

[gunnarhm]

The paragraph talks about requiring IRC style interface. for Text-to-speech and real-time text. IRC may soon be a forgotten service. It would be more clear to express in direct words what the requirement is. ( as is done in the Note)

Proposal 1 ( apart from changing from IRC, there are a few other changes below: (RTT) is changed to RTT text presentation. Examples are moved to the Note. "is" is replaced by "may be" before "favoured" in the now first line of the Note.)

"3.16 Phrase or sentence-wise text interfaces required by blind users

User Need 18: To translate text to speech interactions into comprehensible speech; a blind screen reader user depending on TTS to interact with their computers and smart devices needs a text interface presenting complete phrases or sentences.

REQ 18a: Provide phrase-wise or sentence-wise text presentation as a configuration option in user agents that implement WebRTC as opposed to having only the Real-time text (RTT) type interface.

NOTE
RTT text presentation may be favoured by users who are deaf or hearing impaired. For screen reader users, TTS cannot reasonably translate text into comprehensible speech unless characters are transmitted in very close timing to one another. Typical gaps will result in stuttering and highly unintelligible speech output from the TTS engine.

Some braille users will also prefer the RTT model. However, braille users desiring text displayed with standard contracted braille might better be served in the manner users relying on text to speech (TTS) engines are served, by buffering the data to be transmitted until an end of line character or other delimiter is reached."

Proposal 2. The requirement is valid also for Real-time text communication. Some users may want a way to present it optionally sentence-wise or phrase-wise in TTS or Braille interfaces. Include that in this requirement of create another one with similar wording but for RTT.

[RealJoshue108]

@gunnarhm we will for sure need to discuss this in RQTF, thanks.