Coqui TTS has blew my mind!

[Linux for blind general discussion]

what is your latest website?
On 2/10/2022 11:42 AM, Linux for blind general discussion wrote:
> ..which makes stating that these are accessible incorrect.
>
>
> These samples are in fact accessible, by the w3c's guidelines, not 
> mine. I stated that I have added fallback links to my own website, but 
> this is not a requirement for HTML5 accessibility as defined by the 
> w3c's accessibility working group, or at least not as far as I know. 
> It's just something I did because I wanted to include legacy support 
> for older browsers.
>
>
>> Linux exists in command line as well as gui.  as someone else in a 
>> different thread noted recently, they personally would not touch gui 
>> again for  the rest of their lives if given a choice. Meaning these 
>> options are not universally available or accessible in Linux as a whole.
>
>
> The fact that text-based browsers do not support HTML5 standards makes 
> them inaccessible and perhaps even unusable. There is nothing in the 
> world stopping them from becoming usable by today's standards, it 
> would seem that they just want to stay back in the 1990's. Music and 
> video players exist in text environments, offering nearly all the 
> functionality I get on a desktop. It's time for the browser to do the 
> same. Still, if my phone and my desktop environment can read it 
> without any issues, two out of three ain't all that bad. That said, I 
> was not attempting to start a flame war, as I mentioned the fallback 
> possibility as something that I do, but that the browsers I use hide 
> those fallback links, so I can't say whether or not this other website 
> that I did not write employs such links, which would make the samples 
> available through other browsers, but again is not at all a 
> requirement to meet 2022's accessibility guidelines as defined by 
> people other than myself, which incidentally includes people who as 
> you say use text environments as much as possible. But even those 
> people must use what browsers are designed to at least try to adhere 
> to those guidelines, and like it or not, even w3m does not comply with 
> current HTML standards, and it's about the best text browser available.
>
>
> might as well say, please only be disabled as I personally define it, 
> writing accessible by your own dictionary and seemingly to project it 
> on to other people.
>
>
> Not at all my intention. I didn't define the accessibility guidelines, 
> I only adhere to them to the best of my own abilities, and even took 
> my website's accessibility a major step further than I needed to in 
> order to accomodate the most people. How dare you put words into my 
> mouth that I never said, especially since I clearly said the opposite. 
> And I don't think that was the w3c's intention either.
>
>
> Why not say from the outset, that the items are only available for 
> some Linux users?
>
>
> Because that would be an outright lie. Everyone who runs a Linux 
> operating system has the choice to use Brave, Chromium, Google Chrome, 
> Firefox and a host of other standards-compliant browsers. Just because 
> you yourself made the choice not to use them does not mean that they 
> are not available should you choose one of them. There are even ways 
> around the whole desktop environment and screen display thing, using 
> xvfb I think it's called with dummy display output and a very small 
> window manager that just runs your screen reader and browser and 
> otherwise stays completely out of the way. Again, it's about personal 
> choice, but more about needing the ability to choose a text-mode 
> browser that can handle the simplest HTML5 audio standard, and at 
> least enough JavaScript to be able to handle basic things like banking 
> and shopping without choking and either crashing or sending me to a 
> blank screen or back to the login page as if my credentials were 
> incorrect. The fact is that text browsers can't even handle HTML4 
> correctly, as they don't know how to handle something as simple as 
> headers in most cases. At the very least, keyboard header navigation 
> would be a step in the right direction. But again, this is not my 
> fault, nor the fault of modern website developers. This is a lack of 
> standards compliance among text-mode browsers. Nothing more, nothing 
> less.
>
> ~Kyle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list