[Sugar-devel] SpellCheck for write activity project

[Jake Scarlet]

Noted. I will go ahead with speak


On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 1:31 PM Lionel Laské <lionel.laske at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Jake,
>
> Didn't know Talkify but Talkify seems to rely on a backend.
> Because not all our users have access to Internet (or even to a server),
> my preference is to use JavaScript libraries that could work offline.
> It's why Speak is better thought its quality is worse than Talkify.
>
> Regards.
>
>                    Lionel.
>
> Le sam. 6 avr. 2019 à 10:48, <sugar-devel-request at lists.sugarlabs.org> a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 12:34:56 +0530
>> From: Jake Scarlet <mmatty26 at gmail.com>
>> To: James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org>
>> Cc: sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] SpellCheck for write activity project
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CALJ6_uKt-ot7r4QNM6u_LdoitX-gFDJR9t0YH7j89QV0gzvyCQ at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I tested the API from Speak activity. It's fine but I personally found
>> https://github.com/Hagsten/Talkify to be a better option. I could also
>> tweak the voice a bit to make it sound like Alice from the Python version
>> of write, I've looked into the licencing and all.
>> So should I use this or the one in Speak activity?
>>
>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 04:33, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Look for any APIs used now in Sugarizer for text to speech, and use
>> > the same?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 05:59:50AM +1400, Jake Scarlet wrote:
>> > > Ah yes James, that's exactly what I meant to ask. Thank you all for
>> your
>> > > feedback.
>> > > The project idea mentions that We can use an existing API based text
>> > editor for
>> > > the base. I've decided to go with QuillJS (one of the mentioned
>> options),
>> > > mainly for the flexibility and  the fact that It can be optimized to
>> > such great
>> > > extent. Since it isn't confined inside an iframe like many other
>> legacy
>> > > editors that i came across, I can tailor it to perfectly match the
>> > Sugarizer
>> > > environment.Also, the lack of any dependencies makes up for a lot of
>> > > simplicity.
>> > > I've tested the basic functionalities and they all match up to the
>> > original
>> > > python version of the Write application.
>> > >
>> > > Should I proceed with this?
>> > > And also, what API would you recommend for the text to speech feature,
>> > referred
>> > > to as Alice in the python version?
>> >
>> > --
>> > James Cameron
>> > http://quozl.netrek.org/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >
>> ----
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20190407/ddd6b7d2/attachment.html>