Vocalizer Expressive


Well yes, just getting any response from you is something. Getting anyone at Nuance to respond at all has been an oncoming battle.

Seeing the source code for VEDEMO is logically the next step for me. I’ve made no secret of the fact that my own application, Xpress-It, was based on the demo app for Eloquence. Of course, Xpress-It quickly became much more intelligent, with adaptive word prediction and so on, but the UI was intentionally kept very simple to look at. The job of Xpress-It is literally to speak for me.

When will the source code for VEDEMO be available? That’s a question any project manager should be able to answer, at least within the vagaries of any project.

As for getting access to the SDK again, I seem to dimly recall that Rachel has something to do with sales. If so, I expect her hand to pop out momentarily for more money since I’m going to be moving from an “evaluator” to “developer.” Sigh, that is what it is. I seriously doubt I’ll ever sell a single copy of Xpress-It or whatever the new version is, but SDK developer companies tend to assume that application developers have plenty of money. Again, it is what it is. (Hi Rachel, J)

Stefan, you’ll learn in subsequent email more about who I am, and how I utilize Eloquence (and eventually Vocalizer Expressive). For now, I’ll close with this factoid. The reason why I’m phasing out Eloquence is simply because Nuance end-of-life’d it without ever releasing a 64-bit version. The Windows environment is increasingly 64 bit, to the point that there’s no more 32-bit ODBC, and Xpress-It is heavily ODBC. Yeah. Oh.


From: Hamerich, Stefan [mailto:Stefan.Hamerich@nuance.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 08:57
To: royall@conchbbs.com; Elias, Rachel
Cc: De Moortel, Jan
Subject: RE: Vocalizer Expressive


Here is a hello from me then. J

VEDEMO is a vehicle to demonstrate what can be done with our TTS engine.

But we are going to provide the source code of it.

We do provide sample code and a documentation which do allow to implement all the functionalities.

Creating a UI around should not be too complicated.

Sorry, but nothing more I can do here

Best regards


From: Scott Royall [mailto:royall]
Sent: Mittwoch, 16. April 2014 04:59
To: Elias, Rachel
Cc: De Moortel, Jan; Hamerich, Stefan
Subject: RE: Vocalizer Expressive

Well yeah, let’s see if they even say “hello” to me first! They can at least see what I’m generally doing and what direction I need to head.

From: Elias, Rachel [mailto:Rachel.Elias]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 21:04
To: royall
Cc: De Moortel, Jan; Hamerich, Stefan
Subject: RE: Vocalizer Expressive

Hi Scott – I would like to introduce you to product managers for Vocalizer Expressive. Maybe they can help you? –Rachel


Vocalizer Expressive

Well yeah, let’s see if they even say “hello” to me first! They can at least see what I’m generally doing and what direction I need to head.

From: Elias, Rachel [mailto:Rachel.Elias@nuance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 21:04
To: royall@conchbbs.com
Cc: De Moortel, Jan; Hamerich, Stefan
Subject: RE: Vocalizer Expressive

Hi Scott – I would like to introduce you to product managers for Vocalizer Expressive. Maybe they can help you? –Rachel

Vocalizer Expressive


Let’s start with some positive news, shall we? On last Friday, I was able to finally create enough of a software lash-up to determine if Vocalizer Expressive would be viable for use on-air. While I wouldn’t have called the arrangement pretty, it was sufficient to prove the point. Yes, VE can be made to function over the radio pretty well. Some of the people listening found it quite intelligible, in fact. That’s good news because it says there’s hope that VE can do what Eloquence has done for years, and it is therefore worth working with.

Yes, that’s the good news. One of the guys did say it will need some EQ adjustments, not realizing how few controls are really available with VE. Speed and tone sliders are all there is. On my side though, I did notice some aspects that will really need to be addressed. Whether or not we can get a Nuance engineer to even give me the time of day is going to be the biggest issue. I know that Nuance’s position is going to be they are not interested in increasing their presence in the augmented and assisted communications market, and I certainly understand how incestuous it is. However, flexible high quality voice synthesis is critical to my daily living, and it is important that you and someone else in a position of some influence at Nuance begin to fully appreciate my need intellectually and emotionally. Nuance is currently more likely interested in simpler markets like being a component in automated phone systems. Places where flexibility isn’t a factor because everything you’ll ever need to synthesize is already known. That’s not my reality at all.

Naturally, companies exist to generate profit, and convincing them to revise products out of altruism is generally a non-starter. Yet, Nuance should start paying more attention to what’s going on, because voice synthesis of open-ended vocabularies is becoming more common. For example, several metropolitan fire departments, including Houston, are using it on their main fire and EMS channels, and what they’re using now would frighten you. The National Weather Service at least uses Eloquence or its equivalent on their transmitters. So there’s real money to be had in meeting the needs similar to mine.

One reason why Eloquence has been so damned hard to beat is because of Its history. Apologies if you already know this, but Eloquence was created by Cornell University for the DoD. It was very much a military project, and it was quite well aware of radio procedures. Eloquence knows the International Telegraphy Union phonetic alphabet, also used by hams and pilots. It understands how to recognize and pronounce ham callsigns. It even knows about arcana like “Q-signals.” VE has none of that. True, some of that can be migrated to my application, Xpress-It, but performance is also a major factor.

I cannot overstate the importance of minimizing latency, how quickly people tire of waiting for me to respond is scary. Of course I understand that using the highest resolution model, Premium Tom at 22KHz, constitutes the toughest test, but please understand that audio quality is also critical so I didn’t risk a lower resolution model.

Rachel, the reality is that I now really need a look at the source code for VEDEMO. I haven’t yet decided whether I am going to try replacing Eloquence with VE in the existing application or start fresh, and VEDEMO will help me choose. I’m also going to need access to the SDK again. That shouldn’t surprise you, as we aren’t in evaluation mode any longer. Back during the evaluation, I was scrupulous to not keep the installation package. However, we’re now entering the real-world of development, and I actually use two quite similar laptops. I understand that you’re not overly interested in my situation, but the bottom line is that Nuance has something I’m going to need and you’re my contact. If we can get someone in Engineering to care-or at least smell an opportunity for additional profits, I think we would all be happier.


Expressive Speech Engine


Might I possibly see the source code for VEDEMO? There are some things in it that I really need to see to fully understand. I may be able to tease the information out of the other examples, but VEDEMO is closest to my real-life scenario.

I am developing an overall impression of how Expressive and Eloquence compare in what is daily use for me. Of course I recognize that any observations and conclusions I may offer are largely moot, as Nuance has already decided that Expressive is the future. Still, I would think you might want to see the thoughts of someone whose life will be largely affected by how well your product performs. That may only be my hubris, however.

Scott Royall

The Mythical 80%

This post is really an open letter to Paul Thurrott and Mary Jo Foley regarding how Microsoft introduced the now-renamed Metro interface in Windows 8. Paul runs the windowssupersite.com, while Mary Jo is at allaboutmicrosoft.com. Clearly, they are popular technology analysts of notable repute. They also appear with Leo Laporte on Windows Weekly, where Paul has repeatedly contended Microsoft had to release the “Metro” tiled interface as a mandatory part of Windows 8 in order to assure it some level of adoption. Well Paul, just how well has Windows 8 been adopted by Microsoft’s established Windows userbase? I actually do have a more substantive response to your position, but that question was too relevant to let slip.

Your assertion (reviewing here for everybody else) was that Microsoft really didn’t have many other options, and that the inertia of its huge—roughly a billion—base of established users of its x86-based software offerings gave it a guaranteed income which it could rely on while introducing its touch interface. You referred to this userbase as an enormous “runway.” Taking your aviation analogy a step further, I submit that userbase effectively makes Microsoft the equivalent of an An-125, the world’s largest aircraft. You bet it’s on a long runway, the thing can’t exactly hop into the air because of its incredible inertia! You’re quite right to say no new major applications have appeared for Windows in years, but that only confirms to me that the market Windows dominates is stabile. Paul, I believe you’ve previously said you drive an older car, which tells me you don’t subscribe to the notion of buying the latest and greatest every two years so why are our expectations different for core software? Of course, the answer is that our economic model stresses unbridled growth in practice if not in theory, and companies are driven to maximize profit even if that means selling customers on things of dubious value. Otherwise, why replace software that we are satisfied with? The average consumer isn’t savvy about his or her digital needs so deception isn’t difficult.

Touch technology is essentially meant to make computing desirable to a broader population, and that’s fine as far as it goes. Even I have a Nexus 7. However, touch technology in its current incarnation is basically a conduit for consuming content. Relatively few people can thumb-type paragraphs into their device, and I’m certainly not composing this post on my Nexus. As writers, you and Mary Jo have often said that you need honest-to-God keyboards on which to do your work. Windows (and OS X) has historically been agnostic about whether it’s used to consume or create content, meaning that its capability extends beyond what touch hardware presently makes easy for someone to utilize. Therefore, I would say that Microsoft’s decision to require all Windows 8 users to contend with the Metro interface immediately upon logon was a bonehead move that once again undermined user confidence in the company’s ability to make wise strategic choices. It is as if they don’t recognize why Windows continues to be purchased in mass quantities. Sure, part of that is momentum, but the momentum comes from all those wonderfully critical true x86-compatible applications that keep companies and so many people—like me—in operation today. Anything that impedes users from getting to that compatibility blows a large crater in that runway you referred to. Although an An-125 is a large airplane with tolerance for some runway irregularities, there are limits.

Coincidentally, I encountered this article by Karl Mattson Monday morning that does a very good job of presenting the product design problem that I’m trying to illuminate. Karl focuses on the global markets, but his points are equally valid in the domestic arena. You said it yourselves, Microsoft basically copied the approach used in recent years by the likes of Apple and Google, and didn’t give Windows 8 customers much choice initially. Yet, the very reason why Apple succeeded with the iPad, iPhone, and yes, even OS X, is precisely because their respective markets were largely untapped. The situation with OS X would’ve been closest to Windows in that existing Mac users were compelled to replace all their software within a year. The crucial difference, though, was that Mac only had roughly 5% of the personal computer market at that time so Apple literally had little to lose. Microsoft potentially has the opposite scenario with Windows. Yes, they must innovate and incorporate touch technologies, but that needed to be done in a manner that co-existed peacefully with the established user interface. This is why Karl’s article is so poignant as it highlights steps a company should take to avoid an one-size-fits-all mindset in creating a product. Would that Microsoft had been more assiduous in applying those processes to development of 8. Instead, they made the same sort of mistakes they committed with Vista, a technical success but a marketing titanic.

For the record, I think Microsoft needed to introduce Metro in exactly the manner you say they could not, gradually. Not as a separate operating system, but as an optional subsystem available under Windows 8 on machines capable of properly employing it. No doubt initial adoption would have been abysmal, but that brings us back to the question I posed at the top of this lengthy post. Given the 900-million-dollar write-off Microsoft took last year on the Windows RT variant of Surface for Windows 8, a true non-starter in my opinion, would that money not have been better invested in evolving Metro to work better within Windows 8 on the x86 Surface Pro? We’ll never know, but that certainly would’ve given them time to develop Metro versions of their heavy-hitters like Office. Again, industry analysts tend to under-value that big base of existing Windows applications, and I grant that it may not seem cool, interesting, or maybe even relevant. Microsoft itself now regards Windows as a product line, but the userbase begs to differ. To us, that musty old pile of applications is the core of Windows’ relevancy. That’s why johnny-come-latelies like Windows Phone and Windows RT have so much difficulty gaining traction, at least domestically. “Windows” has specific meaning to us, and, unlike the situation Apple had with OS X, this userbase is large enough to inflict significant damage to the bottom line if bullied.

That probably explains much in the reports you’re hearing about “Threshold,” AKA Windows 9, initially scheduled for April, 2015. Only offering Metro in certain skews, what most people think of as “editions,” would be an improvement. However, I fear Microsoft still hasn’t received the correct message if the reports that they don’t intend to make Metro available to all skews are true. I’m not aware of anyone who objects to the availability of Metro. Rather, the issue has been Microsoft’s decision to make it the initial default on all system configurations. That choice created numerous problems. Yes, Metro needs to be part of every skews, including those sold to enterprises. I spent many years as an application developer for a multi-national energy company, and I can easily envision scenarios where a combination of touch and traditional keyboard would be quite productive. We know there are already laptops that can open flat. Touch-enabled versions would be invaluable in plants and factories as control stations mounted on walls and machines. Use touch for broad input, and the keyboard when precision is required. Somebody needs to shout this message too loudly for Microsoft to miss: Leave choices like the initial user interface up to user preferences and hardware capabilities.

It is at this point that I mentally heave a sigh of relief. I am a physically disabled person, and the primary focus of this blog is on how I encounter in everyday life affect, or are affected by, my disabilities. You’ll understand momentarily how news regarding Microsoft, Metro, touch technology, and Windows 8/9 all pertains to my blog, but I felt it essential to start with your take on the Metro kerfuffle and my intellectual response as someone with a Computing Science BS (a rather appropriate abbreviation) degree and a good chunk of enterprise experience (yes Mary Jo, “I went there”). Frankly, hell yeah, it was a boatload of material to cover, particularly when I have to type with one knuckle. Still, it seemed necessary to lead with the Microsoft stuff to garner your attention.

The true thrust of this post is somewhat broader, being another variation of Karl’s article that deals with the impact of this “consensual bias” on users with disabilities. What Microsoft did with Metro in 8 was an example of the problem. Although Metro is officially usable with any pointing device, we know it’s a bear without a touchscreen. Paul and Mary Jo, I don’t genuinely expect substantial replies from either of you really; what I sincerely want is to further the conversation on how Silicon Valley design decisions are increasingly being pushed out with fewer and fewer choices left open to the user. There’s the argument that the approach has served Apple well. True, but there’s no question in my mind that it also created much of the demand for Android. Several people without any technology interest have told me they found IOS to be too restrictive. I think Microsoft was equally overbearing in their original position regarding Windows 8 and Metro.

I have never told anyone this, but I decided in 1979 to formally enter the computer-relating field because I saw computers as a “great equalizer.” Like dogs, computers couldn’t care less about someone’s disability. As long as the person can effectively communicate to them what to do, the results of the cooperative effort will be just as good as everyone else’s. That equalization effect is key to enabling people with moderate to severe disabilities to function as effective members of our society. I am in a power wheelchair, and I cannot speak. Yet, just like anyone else, I graduated college, had a career, and continue to do pretty much do normal everyday activities, largely thanks to the Digital Age. In fact, it isn’t truly accurate to say I can’t talk. I can, because of an application I began developing back in 1997. I needed the ability to communicate verbally as part of my job, and my employer was willing to purchase any of the existing assistive communication systems. It turned out, however, that none provided the required speech quality so I rolled my own, using enterprise-level technology and based on a former DoD project. Even today, my application compares favorably to more modern equivalents, and I continue to occasionally “pop the hood” and modify something to better handle a scenario I come across, such as use in Amateur Radio.

Perhaps sharing this sort of information gives you a glimmer of why I continue to have a personal stake in that tiresome old x86 pile of software. J I remain somewhat active, and I have a couple of high performance laptops (Dell/Alienware, actually) that share the extremely hazardous duty of always being on my wheelchair. I literally refer to that as “active duty,” and it’s why I have to keep the service contracts current on those machines. This in turn requires me to replace one of them every two years (it’s a four-year lifecycle) so I have to care about whatever Microsoft is doing with Windows.

What prompted to write this epistle is a disturbing trend that seems to be undoing much of the equalization effect intrinsic to computers, specifically the devices and methods companies are inventing to provide a user interface. Understandably, this is being propelled by the imperative to minimize cost while making computers accessible to an ever-increasing population of potential customers in an ever-widening range of scenarios. I have no fundamental issue with that. It’s laudable, in fact. My objection is that companies no longer care—if they ever did—that not everybody can use every input device or method. Suppose you went blind tomorrow—Heaven forefend, imagine using anything with a touchscreen. There are workarounds in a few cases and I’m no expert on blind accessibility, but this example would be very vexing at best. Accessibility seems to be passé, and I don’t know that things will improve again until we have brain-reading implants. (“Brain Bluetooth,” anyone?)

In any case, disability access is only one dimension to what appears to be decreasing efforts to include any appreciable flexibility into new “solutions.” Ironically, Microsoft resolved the general issue back in the mid-90s in their own guidelines for applications written for Windows. One of the dictas could be paraphrased as thou shall provide the user with at least three ways of doing anything. Yes, exactly! That’s truly all it takes to give anybody a reasonable chance of doing or using something. Naturally, implementing that could be expensive in practice, especially if you’re developing a physical device. But again, Karl’s article spells out the basic steps. Or, Microsoft, read your own old documentation.

Yes, I am a demographic outlier, but think about that. By definition, anyone who appreciates technology for its own sake is a demographic outlier, because most people couldn’t care less about it. They use it either because they are required to (by work, for instance), or for a specific task. And yet, Silicone Valley is basing its latest innovations on what it believes those users will want. Excuse me? That largest group doesn’t really “want” anything until it’s “sold” to them so why are we relying on them to drive innovation? That’s the basis for the title of this post; there really isn’t a monolithic majority in any demographic. I would counter that it is the outliers who define the use cases, since we will be the first to try a new whatchamacallit and give feedback useful for refining it. So why do we seem to be forgotten?

And finally, the catalyst that triggered this whole long post (the general topic has been rattling around in my head for a decade) was a game, namely a MMO called World-of-Tanks. (Yes, I know, Mary Jo’s eyes are rolling, but hey, former enterprise geeks still need some recreation.) In that game, you can map any control in the game to any key on your keyboard, but that’s it. WoT is essentially all about driving tanks, and I’m dubious about the efficacy of driving a tank with a keyboard. Another similar MMO, War Thunder, takes a broader approach and allows you to map any game control to anything that Windows sees as an input event. The differences between those two MMOs is a fairly good microcosm of what happens when you do and don’t have flexibility.

Invacare Elyria Ohio direct contact.


With all due respect, do you genuinely think I have ready access to my power wheelchair’s serial number? Really? Sure, I know where it WAS on the chair. Invacare has always printed (or stenciled) it on a little label riveted to the frame just behind the right fork. Unfortunately, that location is obliterated by equipment we install as soon as I take delivery of a chair. I know the S/N is on the purchase invoice, but that’s at the bottom of a filing cabinet.

Luckily, one of Troy’s minions has been here most of the day. The serial number is 10je003133.

It puzzles me why you couldn’t get this information from Troy.

Scott Royall