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... (and 436 for the books ). 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 In addition, the last three years VOCA has only been used ten times in the AAC journal  as opposed to 29 times for SDG . 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)

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)

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 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 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 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 Good_article_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 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)

Chaosdruid
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, 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 and ""communication aid" SGD" = 2,660 . 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)
 * I am not thinking about this "from a robotics context". I clearly stated "If you were to ask a layperson "Name a sort of Speech Generating Device"", something which I would have thought would lead to the realisation that I was considering it from all points of view. I will reply tomorrow when I have more time. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I misunderstood your perspective, but you did also say "Obviously there is a propensity for me to consider that some robots have speech generating devices", and it was to that I was referring. I look forward to your comments tomorrow, but just to say that I don't think guesses about how lay people might understand the term should take priority over how reliable sources use it. --Poule (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62
*"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.
 * Selection set and vocabulary
 * Yeah, that's me doing a bit of an experiment of style. Beukelman and Mirenda are the guys who wrote the major book on AAC and SGD and they're the people that a lot of the citations on this group of articles are from… How about we change "Beukelman and Mirenda define a selection set of a system to be the "presentation of all messages, symbols and codes that are available at one time to a person who relies on AAC"" to "The selection set of a system is the set of all messages, symbols and codes that are available to a person using a SDG"? - that's the definition I'd give it, and it sets up the rest of the section much better. Fayedizard (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, that seems fine to me. As for the other instances of Beukelman and Mirenda (or Musselwhite and St. Louis), it would be very helpful to precede the names with some indication of who the people are. Researchers? Users? This isn't necessary for every instance of a name, but I think providing a label for the first instance in each major section would be a good balance. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed. Fayedizard (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The content, organisation, and updating of this selection set is an area of active research and is influenced by a number of factors. For example, the vocabulary set for an AAC system may include words that the user does not know yet – they are included for the user to "grow into"." First, shouldn't this read "x, y, and z are an area of active research and are influenced..."? Second, the use of "for example" suggests that the second sentence will be one example of "a number of factors", but I would have expected those factors to be things like the user's physical needs, their age, their vocabulary, etc. I think this should be rephrased as follows: "The content, organisation, and updating of this selection set is an area of active research and is influenced by a number of factors, including FACTOR, FACTOR, and FACTOR. The vocabulary set for an AAC system may include words that the user does not know yet – they are included for the user to "grow into"."
 * Changes made :) Fayedizard (talk)
 * "Beukelman and Mirenda list a number of possible sources for the selection of initial content for a SGD." Such as? I think it's important to clarify what "sources" refers to, as it could easily be interpreted to mean anything from books to caretakers. Does "sources" mean the same thing as "informants" in this context?
 * I've added a bit of text to make it clear we are talking about people :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "A range of sources is required because, in general, one individual would not have the knowledge and experience to generate all the vocal expressions needed in any given environment." Err... why not? This seems a bit mysterious to me.
 * So I might need a bit of help with this one - the straightforward example is that if your mother put the vocab in your device, you are unlikely to to have all the words that you might want to use when spending time with your friends or boy/girl friend. There's an interesting aside about swearing here  - but I'm not sure how best to put this into the text - all the examples I can think of are a bit rude… :s Fayedizard (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is not censored, so I don't see why a profanity-laden example would be problematic in that regard. Still, it might be more illuminating to discuss slang in general rather than just swear words. In the source you posted above, I found the bit about "innit" to be both interesting and enlightening. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've popped it in as an example - could also do with one that isn't quite as London-specific as well… Fayedizard (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording a little bit. You dig? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do indeed. :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The following two statements appear to be contradictory: "there are no existing commercial solutions for automatically adding content." and "Similar concerns have been raised regarding some systems for automatic content generation".
 * reworded for accuracy….:) Fayedizard (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "By accessing more of a user's data, more high-quality messages can be generated at a risk of exposing sensitive user data. For example, by making use of global positioning systems, a device's content can be changed based on geographical location." I don't see how the second sentence is an example of the ideas presented in the first sentence.
 * We might want to chat about this one a bit… I think the point that's being made here is "If give some system in the cloud your exact position on earth for every minute of every day, then that system will let you tell other people where you've been - so you give up some of your privacy so that it's easier to say things like "I went out of school at lunch yesterday" - any ideas on sensible ways I could phrase this? Fayedizard (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the ideal way to go about doing this would to find a concrete example of how a device could enhance or change a message based on user data (such as GPS), followed by a brief discussion about why it might be a breach of privacy to track the data in such a way. Is there anything in the literature that discusses the matter this directly?
 * There is (I think one of our references includes some examples) I'll dig something out. Fayedizard (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, how would you feel about placing the "Lifelogging" sentence immediately after the "Webcrawler" sentence? The current layout implies that Lifelogging is another example of breach of privacy, and I don't think that was your intent.
 * I tried it, I feel good about it :) Fayedizard (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "This raises concerns about privacy and the device user should be involved in the decision to monitor use in this way." It seems as though this sentence is missing some words. Perhaps the intended meaning was something like this: "This raises concerns about privacy and some argue that the device user should be involved in the decision to monitor use in this way."
 * Yep definiately missing some words here… have made a change… Fayedizard (talk)
 * I'm not sure I like the use of the word "bottleneck" in Automatic content maintenance. It is certainly a common enough metaphor that native English speakers will understand it, I don't know how accessible it would be for non-native readers. A simple solution would be to replace it with "difficulty".
 * Done.Fayedizard (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or at least I'm sure it *was* done, but reappeared…apologies, I probably did something very strange there… Fayedizard (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Access methods
 * I don't think the first paragraph of Access methods does a good job of explaining the difference between "indirect" access and "specialized" access. Whenever you sort things into specific categories, it's good to give definitions of those categories shortly after they are presented.
 * Worse, the next paragraph contradits and the source isn't ideal :( - let me have a think… Fayedizard (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have another source to back up the claim that Morse code is used as an access system for modern SGDs? This seems highly dubious, particularly since the source in question isn't a scholarly article, it's just a policy page.
 * Dropped - I've always been uneasy… Fayedizard (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rate enhancement strategies
 * There are several places in the article in which pictures and prose suggest that icons and symbols are predominantly used to represent messages, and character-by-character input is used to generate words outside the selection set. The Rate enhancement strategies section seems to suggest the opposite: that character-by-character input is the typical method, and the icons are a sort of "special feature" to enhance the process. This may be a symptom of a larger organization problem. It seems to me that the natural way to organize the majority of the article's content would be as follows:
 * An Access section, which discusses how users physically interact with the device — touchscreen, keyboard, headmouse, pointer, etc.
 * An Input section, which discusses how messages are built — character-by-character, word-by-word, icons to represent entire messages, etc., as well as how those processes are made more efficient.
 * An Output section, which discusses how the device generates the speech (the current Output section seems fine for this).
 * And the rest of the content can be sorted into other sections as necessary. What do you think?
 * I like this, but it's going to take me a while to get to it (I particularly like the 'messages are build' point - I hadn't considered that angle) Fayedizard (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. Wikipedia is a journey, not a race. Also, I'll be away next week, during which time I won't be pestering you with any new nitpicks. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm still trying to work out a good solution to some of your comments on the peer review page - at the moment I'm trying to work out the best thing structurally - thank you for your ongoing patience with those ones…Fayedizard (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename...
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)
 * Are there devices that produce AAC that are not electronic? If not, then just AAC devices.
 * From my point of view the title of this page is about all speech generating devices. It should have the history of them, several different types should be covered in summary and link to the main pages for those types of devices.
 * There should be a section titled "AAC and SGD devices" or "Devices to aid speech impaired users" or similar.
 * This section would explain to the reader that these types of devices are used to help speech-impaired people to communicate more fully with the world and this would include "Main article: AAC/SGD devices", which is where this article should be. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not being in the field, I can't match the technical judgement of you guys; but my first impulse is to say that speech-generating device means what it is to every non-expert. Tony   (talk)  13:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to press the conversation in any one direction (more than I did with the opening) - but I can confirm that there are lots of non-electric AAC devices. Augmentative_and_alternative_communication might be useful to show the context from a disability point of view... Fayedizard (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, bowing out of this one! Tony   (talk)  13:29, 11 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.


 * "Electronic AAC devices": books 6; journals25
 * "Speech generating device" books 308 journals 389
 * "Voice output communication aid" books 230; journals319

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. 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:
 * '"Speech generating device" SGD' books 86 journals 197 Plain google 10,700
 * '"Voice output communication aid" VOCA' books 99 journals193 plain google 20,100

...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)


 * Give me a break, Fayedizard. This topic only includes information about non-speech electronic devices because you added material in the history section which claimed, incorrectly, that POSSUM etc was the first SGD, something utterly unsupported by the source given. Then, when I pointed out your error and removed it as unverifiable and irrelevant, you restored it tweaking it somewhat to remove the first SGD claim and stating it was still relevant as history . I note that you still haven't added information about the device that actually was the first SGD.  That you are now claiming the presence of this semi-irrelevant material as a reason why the name should change is incredible.
 * Why on earth would a google search of the term with its abbreviation be more useful search indicator of the most common use of the term?
 * Why would you want to add material to the topic of "speech generating devices" when there are no reliable sources to support it? Do a search for "speech generating devices".  What is the broader scope of this "speech generating device" article going to be? Poule (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And Poule, please stop trying to say that I am approaching this from, and am limited to, a robotics aspect. For clarity: My comments here are not limited to, nor mainly driven by, robotics interests.
 * I am coming at this from a partially sighted and blindness aspect far more than any other and with computing secondary, and I would appreciate Poule opening their mind a little more - especially as I have already stated that this was not driven by my robotics interests. Once I see Poule acknowledging this, I will entertain further discussion with them. One aspect I would consider needs examining for (in/ex)clusion is translation devices/software which produce spoken translations for the illiterate and whether a card which fits into a computer specifically for screen reading is not a separate device.
 * Perhaps there should be a db page on "Speech generating devices", and "Speech-Generating Devices (AAC)" (or similar) should be for these SGDs that are specific to the ones presently covered here. It does seem true that there is a reasonably close to even split between VOCA and SGD terminology.
 * The main issue for me is whether the "layperson" would expect to go to an article on devices specifically for AAC, or would expect another page. To avoid this a db page should, in my mind, exist here. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying what you are thinking about in terms of the breadth of "speech generating devices". I think if you look again, you will see that I didn't actually link you to robotics perspectives in my latest post, but anyway, I apologize, and it is, as I said, very helpful to have a clearer idea of what your vision of the term is.
 * The thing is that Screen readers for the blind and other text-to-speech software for the learning disabled etc, are not "speech generating devices"; or at least that is not what anybody in reliable sources calls them. They are for one thing, as you say yourself, generally software, not actually devices. Try googling "Speech generating device" and blind, partially sighted screenreaders, and JAWS (one of the most used screenreaders) and you get no hits at all. Screenreaders don't seem to be considered to be speech generating devices in the real world. You get hits with SGD and learning disability, but as far as I can see these are references to those who have AAC needs and learning disabilities. If you google SGD and Kurzweil (one of the best known text to speech software for those who are learning disabled)] once again you get hits, but they are just associations on the same page: none of them describe Kurzweil or a computer that it is loaded onto as an SGD.
 * I don't myself see any evidence from reliable sources that there is any broader scope of "speech generating devices" that goes beyond AAC. As a result, I actually think it would be inappropriate to have a disambiguation page, because if nobody else is calling screenreaders or text-to-speech software/devices (for example) SDGs then WP shouldn't either.  However, I do see your point that it might be confusing for some, and we should try and help our readers: why not include a link at the top of the page saying something like "See Screenreaders for the assistive technology for the blind", and something similar for text-to-speech software for those with learning disabilities.  I think that would be the best solution for dealing with the laypeople who might be searching for the information at SGD. What do you think? --Poule (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to have a conversation about the content - I'm quite happy to, but I think it should be in another thread, let's keep this one about the name shall we?  The key thing for me is that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." - and in my opinion the current title is highly ambiguous - it's also not recognizable to UK readers (no idea about Australia)  - and there are at least two or three potential titles referred to in  reliable sources (the Vanderheiden article used for the history doesn't  use the SGD term at all instead going with "electric communication device", which I would happily have as an article title - except that's just as ambiguous. This has been talked out and it's clearly controversial - is the next step to make it a proper 'rename request' so that this can be settled for another year or shall we talk about the possibility of merging the article with speech synthesis? I think that it's sensible to add content based on the areas that CD was talking about (if we end up renaming to a more specialist AAC term then we'll cross that bridge at the time?   Fayedizard (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not recognizeable to UK readers? That seems unlikely given that the term "speech generating device" is used in this UK newspaperand this one and this news story, this government website, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, on the Communication Matters website, the Independent Living website, the Ashcraig (specialist) school website, the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children, a Sue Ryder Care talk, the UK Dynavox website Inclusive Technology company website Assitive Technology website, the several project description/reports/scholarly articles from Dundee University, Sheffield, and  Stirling , as well as this UK published book, and this one written by an Irishwoman, Martine Smith . I could go on, but that's enough.  And yes, Australia uses the term too . As I mentioned before, it would be very helpful if in future claims could actually be supported with evidence in the first place, rather than putting me into the position of having to do the research to prove them erroneous. Please start by providing evidence about....:
 * why the term is ambiguous, given that I have already shown that 99.5% of reliable sources use the term in precisely this current AAC context. Ambiguity needs to be demonstrated with reference to reliable sources, and to date, the evidence shows that there isn't any ambiguity.
 * what content you would want to add to this article, given that, for example, I have already shown that the screenreaders/text-to-speech software Chaosdruid referred to are not described as speech generating devices in reliable sources. In order to comply with verifiability policy and to avoid original research and synthesis, please provide some links to the reliable sources about "speech generating devices" on which the proposed expansion will be based.  Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Note: since I have goofed up and posted under my main account here, I think I will now stick to it. The alternate account was created for legitimate privacy reasons, declared to arbcom etc, but the main reason for it is passed, so it will be simpler, for various reasons, to retire it. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies, I withdraw the rename suggestion.Fayedizard (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In reality, it is the onus of the person who wishes to change something to show evidence for a change, but where consensus is involved the person who can provide most evidence is most likely to achieve consensus - normally something is only in doubt if several editors think something is amiss.
 * I for one do not give two hoots about what a page is called as long as it follows policy and a general reader who unexpectedly arrives at a page they were not expecting can easily be directed to one they might have expected. If it is consensus that a dab link in the header is more sensible than a db page, then so be it.
 * Thank you Poule (or Slp1?) for acknowledging that I should not have had to make any such declaration, after all my statements about "not robotic" should have been taken in good faith (should they not?) in the first place :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Computer generated voice? Apteva (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge in from Voice banking
Klbrain (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Voice synthesis software
creating a new article about Voice synthesis software --Ne0 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)