Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:25547 comp.cog-eng:927 sci.lang:4022
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.cog-eng,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Why are there no Speech Recognition products for the Mac??
Keywords: Voice Recognition, Voice Synthesis, Speech, Voice Response
Message-ID: <939@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jan 89 22:57:29 GMT
References: <2972@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <1029@ditsyda.oz> <434@eutrc3.UUCP> <927@quintus.UUCP> <1444@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 57

In article <1444@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes:
>>>Why does everybody want a speech recognition device for their Mac (or
>>>other computers)?
>>Because I can speak much faster than I can type.
>> [ more stuff using lots of single and double quotes and parenthesis ]
>     I wonder about this.  Try speaking the preceding paragraph with all
>the punctuation in place.

I did.  It took about 30 seconds.  I didn't pronounce the periods and
commas (assuming that a good speech recognition system would infer
them from pauses and inflection), but I did pronounce all the other
punctuation.  I also said "quote" and "end quote" for both kinds of
quotes, since a good voice-driven word processor would know the rules
about nesting quotations.  See my response to the other person who made
about the same comment.

I just made a comparison.  I spoke the last paragraph in about 36
seconds, without rushing.  I typed it as fast as I could in 1:44.  Try
it yourself.  Certainly a better typist could type much faster, but 3
times faster?  Also note that that paragraph is particularly bad for
voice entry.  Punctuation slows down voice entry much more than keyboard
entry.

>Also, you need some verbal
>escapes, since the word "insert" is a marker (in the above system) and you
>need to escape it back to its use as a normal word.

An alternative to this would be having a chord keyboard with just a few
keys for handling modes.  Holding down one of its keys would mean that
spoken words should be interpreted as commands; if the key is up, all
words should just be inserted.  Another key could be a literal key:
when held down, words like "semicolon" would be spelled out, rather
than inserting a ';'.

Another approach is to plan on the word processor being smart enough to
tell from context whether the word makes sense, or must be a command.

>     The horrors of multi-person offices are too numerous to mention.  Not
>to mention shouting "rm *" into a room crowded with voice recognition
>terminals.

The microphones could be insensitive ones (that don't pick up anything
more than a foot away, and clipped on your lapel, or one of those boom
arrangements that telephone operators use.  No problem.

>I like quiet when I work, not listening to my office abble to
>his machine (and vice versa).


Yeah, I agree with you here.  I tend to listen to quiet music when I
work.  It might be distracting if I had to listen to the 5 or 6 people
with nearby offices talking to their computers.  Maybe it wouldn't work
out.  But I'd sure like to try it.  I'm pretty sure it WOULD be faster.

-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
..!sun!quintus!pds