From: Mikael.Palmblad_at_astrazeneca.com
Date: Mon Aug 29 2005 - 02:36:09 PDT
Larry Yaeger wrote:
At 10:50 PM -0500 8/25/05, William Pociengel wrote:
>there used to be this thing called 'shorthand' where the idea wasn't to
>write characters but to write words. if you don't count words per minute
>by counting 'character' based words then attaining the same speed as a
>good touch typist is not so big a deal.
Yeah, I've occasionally wondered if a shorthand-recognizer would get
any traction. My mother was quite proficient at it. But there
probably aren't enough people who know it anymore to even gather the
training data, never mind put it to use.
---------------------
I would suggest that one of the reasons it is losing popularity is that when
you write shorthand on paper, people need to be able to read it or you have
to transcribe it yourself. With a computer-based shorthand, the computer
could transcribe it, so that the result would be the same as if you had
typed it in.
With the possibilities of computer aided training, it would probably be
relatively easy to become proficient enough to make a shorthand recognizer
useful.
Stop wondering and try it out. I believe it could make a difference,
especially in the area of ubiquitous computing. "Normal" HWR is, as you say,
inherantly slow. Standard keyboards are too large to carry everywhere and
new types, e.g. chording keyboards, also require training. Voice recognition
will not work at all in many environments, e.g. during meetings or in public
places.
Regards,
Mikael Palmblad
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 29 2005 - 05:00:02 PDT