Re: Scripting languages

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:52:51 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Joerg <notthisjoergsch removethispacbell.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:

Joerg <notthisjoergsch removethispacbell.net> wrote:



John Doe wrote:



Joerg <notthisjoergsch removethispacbell.net> wrote:


But I don't want to condition my voice so that some machine
understands it.


I couldn't care less whether a machine understands what I say, and
that's not the goal. Maybe that just seems like the goal.


Then how would a machine that didn't understand your command
execute the macro that you wanted?


The distinction should be made because "recognition" is far from
"understanding". It does the recognition thing and then matches
that with the most likely possibility from a list of words in its
vocabulary. Word popularity is a heavy factor.

Whatever you call it, the objective is not to get a machine to
understand what you say. A singer conditions his voice with the
goal of wooing an audience, not to make the sound waves move
through the air in a particular way.


However, no matter how you turn it in the end the machine has to
recognize (or whatever you'd like to call it) your command and then
execute the correct macro. If it works like some voice recognition
"customer service" outfits it's 50% hit or miss.


Get real. For the vast majority of users, speech-recognition automated
phone service must be much greater than 50% hit or miss. You're dealing
with the wrong company.


Not for long. As I said then I hang up and move on.


Doctors and other medical professionals use speech recognition.


For making appointments, getting a prescription etc.? Ours don't.


One thing I use speech recognition for is online gaming. Of course
that's not critical, but it gets very intense. My speech activated
macroing is absolutely positively extremely accurate, and it uses a
much larger vocabulary than a typical speech driven phone service
implementation.


Ham radio operators (I am one)


Not according to your other reply.


?


know how tricky that can be even for
a human when dealing with noise plus a heavy accent. So they, the
military guys


Have you ever been in the military?


Yes. Have you?


and lots of others use special words. An example: They
say "niner" instead of "nine", to avoid a mix up with "five".


There's nothing unusual about using a lesser technology in a more
critical environment. Using speech recognition, you learn to fluently
revert back to doing things by hand and then back to using the
technology.


It is quite tough to make voice recognition work reliably without at
least some modification of speech.


That depends a lot on the vocabulary. If you are getting 50% accuracy
from a decent implementation of speech driven phone service that has a
few word vocabulary, Yes you should forget about using speech
recognition on a computer for dictation or macro activation.


Here is the crux, they can't operate on just a few words. There are
usually lots of sub-menus, numbers and addresses to be confirmed, and so
on. Ok, case in point, how many people do you think are there that would
be able to pronounce Hauppauge (NY State) correctly? People who live
there excluded. What if someone has to speak a foreign location into the
system because he or she is currently on an assignment there and wants a
new order of checks sent there? What if that person is not in the
military or a ham radio operator and does not know the NATO spelling
alphabet?

With macros you may have it easier because you can assign them less
ambiguous terms.


Also, simply dismissing accents ain't going to fly anymore,
considering that more than a third of Californians have some kind of
accent. Heck, even our governor does. IOW, machine recognition has
to be able to deal with that or it's not working right.


Oh whail. If you're rich, fund the research to make it work better. If
not, either cope with the fact you cannot use it or train your voice
so that you can.


Nah. With few exceptions I expect technology to adapt to humans, not
humans adapt to technology. That's why there are engineers, to make that
happen ;-)

I generally find that saying, "*** it", to a voice "recognition"
system gets you a human operator ;-)

This site...

http://www.gethuman.com/

shows how to circumvent many of the "support" websites and get to a
human.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
.

Quantcast