[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Access-activists] Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms
From: |
Christian Hofstader |
Subject: |
Re: [Access-activists] Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:58:23 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100527 Thunderbird/3.0.5 |
rms: However, you say that the free software speech recognition programs
are so far behind that you consider them unusable. If that is the
case, then we simply cannot recommend ANY program that works with
NaturallySpeaking.
cdh: Has anyone actually done an objective study of the FLOSS speech
reco engines with an eye on comparing them to DNS, IBM ViaVoice/ETI
Eloquence, the dictation built into MS Windows Vista and 7? We all seem
to be working under an assumption that DNS is superior to all others but
have we tried a real world comparison? ALso, after we get going on our
corpus collection project and train the FLOSS engines, we should do
another compare and contrast between the currently existing engines. If
the process shows us that the libre engines, after the retraining
process, work reasonably well, we will have an acceptable alternative to
DNS. Of course, if we don't know how well the different engines work
relative t each other today, we have no baseline from which we can start
to measure improvement/decay anywhere.
cdh: Can someone volunteer to read some standard bit of modern English,
perhaps a chapter from Harry Potter or some other relatively simple
vocabularly set, into a bunch of different FLOSS and proprietary engines
and publish the results for each of us to check out?
cdh: From there, we can do our massive corpus collection, repeat the
tests and know pretty well where we need to start. I think this would
be a really useful exercise.
cdh: Also, I've never tested this but I've heard that DNS does poorly
with command and control tasks as it prefers streams of speech rather
than one or two words at a time. If this is true, it may be a really
poor solution for the programming by voice solution as, in this
modality, lots of single terms will be more necessary than continuous
speech.
cdh: What do you people think?
cdh
Because our goal is to replace nonfree software, NOT to enhance it.
--
Happy Hacking,
cdh
Christian Hofstader
Director of Access Technology
FSF/Project GNU
http://www.gnu.org, http://www.fsf.org
GNU's Not Unix!
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, (continued)
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/25
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Steve Holmes, 2010/07/26
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/26
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Chris Hofstader, 2010/07/26
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/26
- Message not available
- Fwd: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Tony Sales, 2010/07/26
- Re: Fwd: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/26
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/26
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Access-activists] Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms,
Christian Hofstader <=
- Re: [Access-activists] Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Bill Cox, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Christian Hofstader, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Christian Hofstader, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/28