Comments on: Speech to Text: timesaver or time waster? http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/ A survival guide for the 21st century researcher Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:36:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Anonymous http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-45959 Anonymous Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:18:50 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-45959 the the

]]> By: Voice Recorders http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-40881 Voice Recorders Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:51:38 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-40881 In my opinion it all depends on calibration. Of course there are better pieces of equipment out there and you cant expect all of them to function the same. At the end of the day it is all about how the voice recorder for example is calibrated. In my opinion it all depends on calibration. Of course there are better pieces of equipment out there and you cant expect all of them to function the same. At the end of the day it is all about how the voice recorder for example is calibrated.

]]> By: Claude http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-14562 Claude Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:31:08 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-14562 I had a very bad experience with dragon also. It took me 5 days of playing their speech recognition and I still had some issue. So I tried their support but they are not very good at helping. So I do not recommend to buy this program. I am still looking for a good software. I had a very bad experience with dragon also. It took me 5 days of playing their speech recognition and I still had some issue. So I tried their support but they are not very good at helping. So I do not recommend to buy this program. I am still looking for a good software.

]]> By: Tom Birkland http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-13391 Tom Birkland Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:40:53 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-13391 Responding to Terri Yu: I agree that David Pogue at the NYT did a review of the latest Dragon in which he raved about its accuracy. I think he claimed about 90 percent before training, and about 95 percent after that. Ninety percent sounds impressive, but consider the following (I am sorry I don't remember where I first read this): The typical English word is about five characters, so 20 words would equal 100 characters--and, with 95 percent accuracy, several of those words (on average, five of twenty) would have some sort of error. Of course, the errors wouldn't distribute this way--my guess is that those of us in academia would see errors in technical terms in our work, not in the sort of words I am using in this post, for example. I am a social scientist, so I see words like "postmodernity" and "reify" and "ontological" perhaps a bit too often--I suspect that these are the sort of words that will give Dragon or other voice recognition fits. I have a colleague who had arthritis and had to use voice, but she put an awful lot of time into it. I can type very fast, so as much as I think the idea is super cool, I just cannot justify it. My dream is to have highly accurate voice recognition that can take dictation from me--so that when I am driving, or working out, or whatever, I can make a voice note that I upload to a computer, and then get back as text. I've seen recorders that allegedly do this, but I strongly doubt it works. Responding to Terri Yu: I agree that David Pogue at the NYT did a review of the latest Dragon in which he raved about its accuracy. I think he claimed about 90 percent before training, and about 95 percent after that. Ninety percent sounds impressive, but consider the following (I am sorry I don’t remember where I first read this): The typical English word is about five characters, so 20 words would equal 100 characters–and, with 95 percent accuracy, several of those words (on average, five of twenty) would have some sort of error. Of course, the errors wouldn’t distribute this way–my guess is that those of us in academia would see errors in technical terms in our work, not in the sort of words I am using in this post, for example. I am a social scientist, so I see words like “postmodernity” and “reify” and “ontological” perhaps a bit too often–I suspect that these are the sort of words that will give Dragon or other voice recognition fits.

I have a colleague who had arthritis and had to use voice, but she put an awful lot of time into it. I can type very fast, so as much as I think the idea is super cool, I just cannot justify it.

My dream is to have highly accurate voice recognition that can take dictation from me–so that when I am driving, or working out, or whatever, I can make a voice note that I upload to a computer, and then get back as text. I’ve seen recorders that allegedly do this, but I strongly doubt it works.

]]> By: Jennifer Brien http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7334 Jennifer Brien Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:39:58 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7334 I've no experience of it, but I'm interested in Speech Dasher. It's only a prototype so far, but it could really be sweet for transcribing: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/kv227/speechdasher/ Quote: Speech Dasher is a novel interface for the input of text using a combination of speech and gestures. A speech recognizer provides the initial guess of the user's desired text while a gesture-based interface allows the user to confirm and correct the recognizer's output. It is hoped that Speech Dasher will provide a text input interface which is: More efficient - allowing faster input than either speech or gestures alone. More fun - providing a consistent and less frustrating method of correcting speech recognition errors. More accessible - enabling text input by people unable to use a keyboard and by those using mobile devices. I’ve no experience of it, but I’m interested in Speech Dasher. It’s only a prototype so far, but it could really be sweet for transcribing:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/kv227/speechdasher/

Quote:

Speech Dasher is a novel interface for the input of text using a combination of speech and gestures. A speech recognizer provides the initial guess of the user’s desired text while a gesture-based interface allows the user to confirm and correct the recognizer’s output.

It is hoped that Speech Dasher will provide a text input interface which is:
More efficient - allowing faster input than either speech or gestures alone.
More fun - providing a consistent and less frustrating method of correcting speech recognition errors.
More accessible - enabling text input by people unable to use a keyboard and by those using mobile devices.

]]> By: Matthew Cornell http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7332 Matthew Cornell Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:31:25 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7332 Thanks for the extensive write-up. I came to the same conclusion (more at: The 4-hour workweek applied: How I spent $100, saved hours, and boosted my reading workflow http://ideamatt.blogspot.com/2007/08/4-hour-workweek-applied-how-i-spent-100.html) For general capture, I found voice unwieldy - I capture a lot during the day, and a 1 or 2 day turnaround time is the max I can live with. I think outsourcing this kind of day-to-day information would be expensive and complex. I find the plain old pad of paper works great. Write anytime during the day (or night), tear off, toss into inbox, and process daily! Thanks for the extensive write-up. I came to the same conclusion (more at: The 4-hour workweek applied: How I spent $100, saved hours, and boosted my reading workflow
http://ideamatt.blogspot.com/2007/08/4-hour-workweek-applied-how-i-spent-100.html)

For general capture, I found voice unwieldy - I capture a lot during the day, and a 1 or 2 day turnaround time is the max I can live with. I think outsourcing this kind of day-to-day information would be expensive and complex. I find the plain old pad of paper works great. Write anytime during the day (or night), tear off, toss into inbox, and process daily!

]]> By: Ben Kraal http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7289 Ben Kraal Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:18:06 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7289 I did my PhD on (among other things) how people who <em>can't</em> type make Dragon (or similar software) useful and useable day-to-day. It requires so much effort to be a productive user of desktop speech recognition software that unless you are absolutely compelled to use it for reasons of injury or other disability then you are better off not using it, if only to save yourself the frustration. I did my PhD on (among other things) how people who can’t type make Dragon (or similar software) useful and useable day-to-day.

It requires so much effort to be a productive user of desktop speech recognition software that unless you are absolutely compelled to use it for reasons of injury or other disability then you are better off not using it, if only to save yourself the frustration.

]]> By: Terri Yu http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7271 Terri Yu Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:35:03 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/speech-to-text-timesaver-or-time-waster/#comment-7271 I'm surprised that you had such a bad experience with Dragon. I remember that the New York Times gave Dragon an outstanding review. The accuracy was above 90%, if I remember correctly. I’m surprised that you had such a bad experience with Dragon. I remember that the New York Times gave Dragon an outstanding review. The accuracy was above 90%, if I remember correctly.

]]>