Talk:Speech-generating device

Name

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)

To my knowledge, Voice Output Communication Aid was used more in the past, but the SDG is now used more. I believe that VOCA continues to be used in the UK more, however. As far as googlesearches are concerned, I think it is better to go with googlebooks and googlescholar searches, for the more "official name". SGD books 191 scholar 435 vs VOCA [ books 79 and scholar 94--Poule (talk) 15:58, 16 July 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)

Yes, you are quite right, I made a mistake with the search. Sorry about that. I still think that the SDG has become/is becoming the most common name; it is the term used in Beukelman and Miranda and the most common one in other recent texts including this one edited by Martine Smith[3] In addition, the last three years VOCA has only been used ten times in the AAC journal [4] as opposed to 29 times for SDG [5]. I don't see a convincing reason to change the name again, but as you say we can keep it considering it periodically in case the situation changes. Poule (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Rate enhancement strategies */

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)

Producers

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)

References

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)

Name again

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've no objection to changing it to that - overall (as above) I'd much prefer VOCA, given the effect that the ipad ect is having on the industry (because in the limit, I think we are moving towards aids as software rather than hardware), but that conversation stalled, I'm happen to support a change to 'Speech generating devices', if you'd like to carry it out...Failedwizard (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

information about pictured devices

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Speech generating device/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

:) Failedwizard (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Beginning review

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:

• lede

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?

Done Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"users of all abilities" - not clear what this means - perhaps "users with various abilities"? or "users with varying abilities"?

Done Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• History

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?

Expanding Toby in a relatively small way - happy to do more, I'm not overly keen to push one manufacturer or device over another so I'm not *that* keen to pop the Lightwriter in, but I'm happy to if you think it's important :) Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

How does eye pointing or scanning work? How do eyes provide input, or whatever happens?

Expanded this a little Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"to reduced in size and weight," to be reduced? To become smaller and lighter?

Done Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"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.

Switched 'capacities', with 'capabilities' which is I think what I meant the first time *blush* Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Input methods

"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?

Explained a little bit more based on source, can give full examples if you like but that might require a bit of a rearrangement of the article :s Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Access methods for speech generating devices

Could you explain a little how switch access scanning works?

Not got to this yet, will come back Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so certainly can, and will do if you think it's worthwhile, but I think it's fair to mention that switch access scanning might get a serious overhaul of it's own within the next little while (See Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Animation for example) and I think it may well be an article to be reconed with in it's own right soon... what do you think? Failedwizard (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reply I think the article will benefit from a little elaboration on some of this issues. (I am having a problem fitting the images into their section, and some beefing up will help.) As far as a separate article, cross that bridge when you come to it. And it does no harm to have some repetition providing context for readers like me. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Expanded with sources :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• General

Why so much mention of the UK and no other country? Are they really in the forefront?

Um, I wasn't aware it was that much... can you point out some points were you feel it's a bit heavy handed?

• Reply - Well, the UK is the only country mentioned, and it is mentioned twice. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  Good point, bit of national pride creeping in there I suppose, I've dropped the one in the lede as it's least relevant there...Failedwizard (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• More reply There is also a UK in a caption. So there are two UK's and no other country mentioned. This is a little POV and not broad, unless you can justify this focus! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Dropped the caption, added the Netherlands as home of some early technology. :) Failedwizard (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary to have a footnote for each mention of Roger Ebert

Done, lost the one in the lede Failedwizard (talk)

Could this image be described more fully?

Expanded Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I may add a few more. Please feel free to contact me or ask questions (and to fix my mistakes!)

No problem, thanks for this - I'm currently making edits very hurriedly on a train as it pulls in so sorry if this is brisk! Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Failedwizard, the references are screwed up. Please check. Also, the lede needs to be expanded somewhat to summarize the content of the article, per lead. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  My bad on reference, was hasty earlier, fixed now. Will look into lede, are the any sections you think are particularly under-summerised? Or would a general expansion suit? Failedwizard (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

December 16 update

• I have been reading Augmentative and alternative communication and I think there is some very good content in there that directly applies to SGDs and would clarify and enhance this article. I understood a lot more about this article after reading it. For example, information in the Access and selection methods and Vocabulary organization directly apply to SGDs. And there is some more explanation there of some of the concepts only briefly touched on here. For example, there is a clear explanation of low and high tech devices, and the distinction between grid and other formats. I "lifted" a few sentences but feel that more could be added. A reader shouldn't have to read that article, or any other article, to understand this one. How do you feel about this suggestion?

I wouldn't mind doing it myself (to some degree, as I am no expert and you would have to make sure I wasn't adding unreferenced material.) I don't think it would be hard to do, just adding material that directly enhances the descriptions of SGDs.

Also, the lede needs work. Right now it is too short and doesn't summarize the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first off - I'll spend some time on the lede tonight, it's something I often have a weakness on. On the relationship between this article and the Augmentative_and_alternative_communication I would like to be very careful. To a very large extend this is something of a sub-article dealing with the hi-tech aspects of Augmentative_and_alternative_communication and which content belongs in which article has been subject to quite a lot of debate (there are a few bits that are not how I would like them, but I think it's important to respect other editors involved...) Currently there's a lot of places in the AAC article that link here, and that's probably the route most readers will arrive at this article, but I do agree it should stand on it's own. I'd like to get input from some other editors with an interest in both articles (Particularly user:Poule) before much more migration happens - If it's something that's a sticking point in the GA review then we can probably work thought it (the stuff you brought in from Semantic_compaction is great for example, but I'd like not to be risking a Wikipedia:Content_forking situation with Augmentative_and_alternative_communication while it's on it's (bumpy) route back to FAC. Sound reasonable?

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)

But, of course, if you're getting a taste for this topic there are all manner of related projects ;) Failedwizard (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Added several paragraphs to the lede. Failedwizard (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to lede issue

In Lead: Introductory text it says that it is very important that the text in the lede be accessible, that "specialized terminology be avoided, and that where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader."

The reason I have struggled so much with this article is that I had to read several other articles in order to know what was being talked about in the lede. The term Augmentative and alternative communication is jargon and the general reader isn't going to know what it means. You can't expect the reader to read that article in order to continue with Speech generating device. Each article must stand on its own.

For example, the phrase: "to improve the content management" in the lede was confusing to me, because I, the reader had not been told what these "devices" do (in simple language), nor what content needed to be managed. And, although everything in the lede must be covered in the text, "content management" is not mentioned again in the body of the article, nor its meaning explained. I began to understand it after reading Augmentative and alternative communication several times.

right|100px

Seeing the image with the caption: "Speech generating device using a visual scene display, accessed using a head mouse" was a revelation to me as I had no idea what a "headmouse" was, or that any of these "devices" were in other than a grid format. The article is not broad if it doesn't give some flavor of the variety of these "devices", the different ways they organize and allow creation of "messages", and the variety of ways the user interacts with the "devices", manipulates the content and outputs a communication. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, that you for the explanation, and also for the helpful edits you have made over the last few days - I think the article is in a better shape having had another editor's attention. I'm struggling a little bit with the overall thrust of what you are saying - does this mean the article has failed GA? Failedwizard (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

• No! It hasn't failed! :) And I don't expect it to. I'll get a second opinion before I would fail this article. The lede is the most pressing issue. It needs to be worded in a way the general reader can understand, summarize the article giving weight in the lede in proportion to the importance of each subject in the article body, and make sure that everything you cover in the lede is explained in more detail in the article body.

I blame myself for not having explained things more clearly. Plus, this article and the other related articles are completely fascinating! I just didn't know anything about all this before. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Let's have a look at the lede in a bit more detail then... (I've annotated in where I think each section is referred to...

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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. Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings and be pragmatic in functionality.

(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. 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.

(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. SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions.

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 .

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

How do you feel about that version?

Rely to proposed lede

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)

Um, yes I think so... I didn't realise that the second part (the knowing where to look) was a requirement of the lead... would you be happy with the suggested lead?

• Reply - Yes. I'm not willing to worry about the lede any longer, since you seem confident in your version. So I will pass the article, as it is well written and very interesting. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I've made some comments which I think you can easily address. I may add a few more but nothing major.
   • The lede needs to be expanded to summarize the article per lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Still have to check but I'm not worried.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Perhaps more explanation could be added, as mentioned above, and some more information about the notable users.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Question about one image, that the caption could be more explanatory. The images are great and very helpful.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• This is a fascinating article well presented. Thanks for writing it!

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Some concerns about this article.

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.

• The first issue is that the history section previously stated that POSUM and LOT were "the first known speech generating device (SGD)" which is curious since neither generated speech. The sources cited do not state that these were the first SGDs either, naturally. I removed the section, but it has since been reinserted with a change to "speech generating devices (SGD) have their roots in early electronic communication aids" which is at least more accurate.--Poule (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As the issue had already been responded to, I think we can talk about the rest. Failedwizard (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Can I just confirm you meant Vanderheide? Because that reference is already in the article (although, the edit you mentioned removed all references to it...) I just want to confirm we're talking about the right reference... Failedwizard (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference with the section that contained erroneous material. But I am not talking about using the reference itself but of the content of the Vanderheide article I linked to. According to the article, Eulenberg and later Vanderheide et al, created the first SGDs. Why do we hear so much about the creation and reception of two devices that were not even SGDs and nothing at all about the actual first SGDs. The material about POSSUM and LOT needs to be condensed given that they are not even SGDs, and material about the first SGDs included. --Poule (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the material on LOT and POSSUM as it is until we've had a lot more conversation (and until the dispute at the noticeboard has come to a conclusion) but by all means add some content on Eulenberg and Vanderheide (if you want to add something about the canon communicator as well I've got a nice picture that can go with that). Failedwizard (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've looked for the conference proceedings cited unsuccessfully, but I sincerely doubt that "Friedman, M. B., et al. "The Eyetracker Communication System," 1982, and "Friedman, M.B., et al. (1985) "An Eye Gaze Controlled Keyboard" contain any information about the founding of Toby Churchill's company, or perhaps even that of the Dynavox company. Can the relevant quotes from the articles be provided, please? Or maybe it is easier just to find other citations? --Poule (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

For a quiet life, I've replaced the references with references from the respective company websites. (In response to the issue of finding conference proceedings, I'm a bit confused... they come up fine for me) :s Failedwizard (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to one of the articles. I did look for the proceedings through googlescholar and through IEEE but wasn't as successful as you for some reason. Did you find the other one? I notice that the one you found didn't support the material it claimed to, so it was a good idea per WP:V, rather than a quiet life, to change the references.--Poule (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So I think we can consider this issue closed (I didn't look for the other article - I can if you are interested in reading it)Failedwizard (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is "Gizmag" a reliable source? The article cited [6] looks to me to be a promotional puff piece for Neospeech Inc and in any case, as a minor point, I'd question the significance of detailing Hawking's voice choices in this article.--Poule (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As the source is only being used to reference the fact that Hawking is using a Neospeech product I would quite expect even a company press release to be adequate. Moreover, because Hawking is absolutely the person that the public would most associate with VOCA devices he should have quite a lot of space in the article (particularly to address issues like why his voice sounds out-of-date compared to modern speech systems - you and I might no why, but it's not obvious to the general public) - I'm happy to change it to 'a different provider' if you think mentioning Neospeech in the article is promotional...Failedwizard (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The quality of sources is important in determining the significance of information for an encyclopedia article, per WP:NPOV, so a promotional article such as the gizmag one is concerning if that is the only source per undue weight. Your suggestion that the article needs to "address issues like why his voice sounds out-of-date compared to modern speech systems" sounds like original research to me. Are there any reliable sources about this issue? --Poule (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be original research, or there might be many reliable sources - but as the issue is not in the article (yet), I don't really think it's one for debate right now... Back to the refernce - this was something that was fine during GA review, and fine on the (detailed) prep that was done by a very good editor User_talk:Failedwizard#preparing_for_a_GA_review and certainly doesn't require special knowledge of the field, so it's probably good for consensus, on the other hand - if the reviewer has another look and decides it doesn't belong in the article, then I'll happily lose it or watch it be lost...

• Another minor point: why does eye-tracking get mentioned so many times throughout the history section? --Poule (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, bit confused... I see four mentions of 'eye' in the article, one of which is part of the definition for one of the others... Do you think three mentions are too many?Failedwizard (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, I see eye pointing-tracking only twice within the history section, but it is repetitious of content. There is "Alternative methods of access such as eye pointing, which the movement of a user's eyes is used to direct a SGD....became available on communication devices", then later we have "while increasing accessibility and capability; communication devices can be accessed using eye-tracking systems". --Poule (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, this was fine during GA review, and fine on the (detailed) prep that was done by a very good editor User_talk:Failedwizard#preparing_for_a_GA_review and certainly doesn't require special knowledge of the field, so it's probably good for consensus - but if you have a rewording you like better then pop it in...

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've responded where I can - I think that covers everything... It's very easy to get it reassessed if you like - see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment#Articles_needing_review_and_possible_reassessment for all the instructions. In fact, if you're still not happy with the article being GA, I'm happy to relist it for you... Thank you for raising these issues by the way - I'm sure it will make the article better - and that's what counts :) Failedwizard (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather work with you to avoid going the article reassessment route. If you are willing to respond to the concerns to improve the article, then I am sure that is the best way to go about it. I'll look at the other sections as I have time. --Poule (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I must admit to being quite discouraged by your most recent comments. It doesn't look like you are really committed to addressing any concerns since you either want me to do all the work or are relying on "consensus" from other editors, at least one of whom admits not really understanding the topic. Do you want to work together? Or shall I just put it up for Good article review straightaway? As I said, I'd much rather do the former. --Poule (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from GA reviewer

• I apologize if my questions and suggestions reduced the quality of the article. I had a hard time understanding the article, and it was only by reading the linked articles that I began to understand (I thought!) I think it has a lot of specialized information in it, and it's difficult for a general reader to understand. So I can't contribute any further opinions or advice, as I don't quite grasp what the disagreements are about. Taking it to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment would be a good way to obtain general community opinion from readers that are not familiar with the topic. My unfamiliarity with the topic is probably responsible for problems. I spent a great deal of time on reviewing it and trying to understand. I fear it is over my head, and over my ability to comment further. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mathew. I don't think you did anything negative at all to the article, and you certainly don't need to offer any apologies. You brought out lots of important points in the GA review, and one of them was that it is difficult to understand. Looking back I think your suggestions were very helpful and to the point. It is important that the article be accessible to all, and shouldn't require specialist knowledge to grasp. Thank you for your comments. --Poule (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Robotics project

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:

• Is the VODER (and/or VOCODER) a speech generating device?
• Is the article specifically for devices relating to disabilites?
  • If so, then discussion needs to be entered to separate the general term and the specific AAC usage.
• Why is there no mention of text to speech devices?

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:

• Speech synthesis (Top level)
  • Augmentative and alternative communication (linked from SS) (mid level)
  • Speech generating device (Mid-level and linked from SS and AAC)
    • PlainTalk (either mid or bottom level as it covers many methods but is Apple™ specific)
      • Separate articles on specific devices (Bottom level e.g. VOCODER/VODER, EyeTyper, POSSUM etc)

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)

Thanks Chaosdruid, for taking this on. Your comments, coming from a different theoretical direction, are great food for thought. A few quick answers from me:

• I think the original of intent of the article is to cover SDGs in AAC only. It was actually created as Voice Output Communication Aids. Since SDGs has become the more frequent term for these devices, I moved it to here in 2008; the focus remained the same, however. I don't actually know of other devices called SDG other than AAC, though I am prepared to believe they exist. However, I suspect SDG is most commonly used in an AAC context. I don't know anything about the Vocoder, for example, but on a very quick look preliminary look I don't see reliable sources using calling it an SDG very much, if at all. I may be wrong, though, and I really don't have time to do much research about this at present.
• Synthesized speech is the same as text-to-speech.
• From an AAC point of view, there would be a different hierarchy; like this:
• AAC top level
  • Speech Generating Device
    • Speech Synthesis

The reasoning is that AAC includes things other than SDGs (e.g. low tech boards) and SDGs do not all use speech synthesis; many use recordings/digitized speech only.

• I don't think things like POSSUM, Eyetyper need their own articles: they are merely of historical interest, and are not even SDGs, actually.
• Plaintalk, like Dectalk, is a type of speech synthesis rather than an SDG.

Thanks again, Chaosdruid, for your input. You asked on my talkpage if the article had gone to GA review, and the answer is no, not yet. It will be interesting to sort out your concerns, but even assuming that this remains an AAC focussed article, my concerns are mainly with verifiability, missing information and prose. Fixing some of these will require knowledge of the topic and access to the literature/texts used. --Poule (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you were to ask a layperson "Name a sort of Speech Generating Device", I can only imagine a large amount of answers containing "a computer" or "a synthesizer". The problem is that the title of the article is not "SGD for people with disabilities", but that it could easily be taken as a descriptive term for any device that generates speech. Which also takes me to the fact that Plaintalk and Dectalk are used in devices and generate audible speech output - I included them as I found this [7], listing "communication software", amongst my research this weekend.

The examples I gave for devices on the bottom level were only examples for context, I am not saying that those particular devices/systems need an article of their own.

Obviously there is a propensity for me to consider that some robots have speech generating devices, as do other things such as (at the other end of the scale) lorries and their annoying "Warning, vehicle reversing" etc. In other words the article title carries across many fields while AAC is specific to people with disabilities.

Perhaps we should consider changing the title to "Voice-output communications aids" (VOCA)? using this article for it's more general purpose linking all the articles together with sections for each (VOCA, VODER/VOCODER et al, Speech synthesis via PC, and any others etc.). It would then read:

• "A Voice-output communications aid (VOCA), sometimes known as a Speech Generating Device (SGD), is a ..." Chaosdruid (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

PS - Google, though perhaps not a good tool for this particular subject, gives ""communication aid" VOCA" = 39,800 [8] and ""communication aid" SGD" = 2,660 [9]. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Morning... thank you very much for your comments Choasdruid - it's wonderful to have an experienced editor who isn't working from a disability-centric viewpoint - and it's clear that when I started redeveloping the article I was thinking entirely of the specialised term rather than any broader meaning of speech generating device. Some quick responses:

• Obviously I'd be really happy to rename the article back to VOCA (Or even 'High tech communication aid" if that continues to be a problem)
• I don't see a particular parent/child relationship between this article and Speech_synthesis in either direction (as Poule says "SDGs do not all use speech synthesis; many use recordings/digitized speech only" and I also have some general philosophical unease with the idea), although certainly I think it would be nice if AAC in general or VOCA devices in particular were mentioned in Speech_synthesis. I'd love to reach the point where this article was developed enough to be spinning out articles for particular devices as well - that would be wonderful, although we might struggle for sources for any more of a handful of the historical ones.
• Where are we generally now? Is it your opinion, ChaosDruid, that it would be best for the article if it went back to GA review (once we sort out the name issue) or would you like to spend a bit more time looking for any concerns? Failedwizard (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comments about the name of the article, ChaosDruid, I think your search is a bit flawed because the full version of VOCA (Voice Output Communication Aid) actually contains the phrase "communication aid". More importantly, per WP:NAME the article should be under the "most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". Books in the last five years: Voice output communication aid 104speech generating device 169. Journal articles in the last five years Voice output communication aid 271 and Speech Generating Device 314. The most common name in recent reliable sources is SDG, and it is notable that in the "speech generating device" searches, only about 0.5% refer to a non-disability context. It doesn't seem that this term is frequently used for the robotics context you are thinking about, though it is understandable that it is what could come to mind, but is virtually always used in reliable sources for exactly the topic of the article. --Poule (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)