Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion
You are not logged in.
Hey, folks. So, I'm checking to see if there is any interest in having stories in audio format.
Now, before answering, consider that I am NOT talking about having actual humans doing voiceovers. Nor am I talking about the usual text-to-speech robot voice.
There is software out there now that can produce a human(ish) sounding reading. It's decent: it's much easier to listen to than the usual robot voices you get for TTS, but, despite their claims, I can still tell it's not a human reading it. Usually the inflection is not quite right in places. But the reading is much smoother than what I'd consider the norm.
This software comes at a cost. The cost isn't uber-high, but if there's absolutely no interest in this sort of thing, then I don't see much point in spending the money on it.
If this feature appeared, it would be in the next version of the website... and depending on the work load it imparts on me, it might only be available to donors. (Though the voiceover is created by computer, there is a lot of manual handling that still has to be done.)
Audio format likely to be used: MP3 and/or WEBA.
There is A poll concerning this issue, if you wish to just give a yes/no answer.
I drive truck for a living so being able to listen to a story is better for me.
Not for me, my hearing is too poor to listen to audio books.
Not really, I prefer to read stories than listen to them.
Just giving this a bump, in case somebody missed it.
I wouldn't. If some people are interested, then that's great. But I feel it should be something left on the back burner for a while. There are a lot more vital things that I would rather see focused on before doing something like this.
It could be a good feature down the road, but starting plans for this at the moment just seems a bit premature.
You make it sound like the project is some massive undertaking. If it was, I wouldn't have been considering it.
But currently the poll is pretty close to 50/50, so... *shrugs*
Also... "premature"? This site is 15 years old.
"Premature" in relation to the new site. It feels like the type of feature you would patch in later after the site had already been finished and stabilized.
If it isn't that difficult though, then I'm not really opposed to it. You were the one who said there would be a lot of manual handling.
"a lot of manual handling" doesn't equate to difficult, it equates to tedious. Crafting the new site is going to be massively tedious anyway.
But again, as I said, the current vote is roughly 50/50, which isn't a resounding endorsement of the idea.