rburns%master@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) (12/29/88)
I recently saw an article on Go Corp's rumored product in InfoWorld. Allegedly Go will produce an electronic tablet that can recognize handwriting on the fly. Apparently the engineering problem of recognizing handwriting in real time is significantly less than that recognizing the digitized pattern. What I am wondering is if any work is being done on using cheap, commodity type computer equipment to recognize handwriting. I've seen some mention by an Apple exec that they eventually plan to use a stylus instead or in addition to a mouse. This sounds to me like they might be moving towards handwriting recognition! Can any Mac or PC programs currently recognize handwriting or shorthand and turn it into ascii code? It has occured to me that one could fairly easily create a special shorthand that would recognize mouse movements and translate them into text (say using a mac desktop accessory). The theoretical advantages are considerable most people write faster than they can type. Good shorthand operators write faster than *any* typists. Using the mouse as the primary input device would eliminate the need for a keyboard on laptops. Recognizing of ordinary handwriting would make computers more accessible to nontypists. I'd like to find out if anyone else has ever done any work on pc handwriting recognition, or mouse oriented shorthand. Thanks for your help.
jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen N.E. Bos) (01/02/89)
In article <83242@sun.uucp> rburns%master@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) writes: >The theoretical advantages are considerable most people write >faster than they can type. Good shorthand operators write faster >than *any* typists. Ever heard of the "Velotype" keyboard? It allows one to type all letters of a syllable simutaneously. It allows a trained typist to type anything you say. -- -- Jurjen N.E. Bos (jurjen@cwi.nl)
dr@skivs.UUCP (David Robins) (01/03/89)
In article <83242@sun.uucp> rburns%master@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) writes: >... >Allegedly Go will produce an >electronic tablet that can recognize handwriting on the >fly. >... >I'd like to find out if anyone else has ever done any work on >pc handwriting recognition, or mouse oriented shorthand. A few years back, some company made the Pencept system, which used a digitizing tablet and special software to recognize hand PRINTING. I don't know whether this is what you mean by "handwriting". The system could just about keep up with a moderate hand printing speed. Systems were available for PC's, as well as minicomputer systems using the RS232 interface. Today, a similar device called Handwriter is made by Communication Intelligence Corp, in Menlo Park, CA. -- David Robins, M.D. (ophthalmologist / electronics engineer) The Smith-Kettlewell Institute of Visual Science, *** net: uunet!skivs!dr 2232 Webster St, San Francisco CA 94115 *** 415/561-1705 (voice) The opinions expressed herein do not reflect the opinion of the Institute!
Ilan@cup.portal.com (ilan - rabinowitz) (01/04/89)
> Ever heard of the "Velotype Keyboard" ?...
Does anyone have information on the above keyboard, or any other
"exotic" ADB keyboards ? I would appreciate any information
available.
- Ilan Rabinowitz -
Ilan@cup.portal.comddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) (01/05/89)
In article <83242@sun.uucp> rburns%master@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
:The theoretical advantages are considerable most people write
:faster than they can type. Good shorthand operators write faster
:than *any* typists.
Really? I understood that one serious problem in passing a 20-words
per minute morse code test was in writing down the words -- that is,
that few people can write faster than 20 words a minute.
Most people who can type at all type at least 30-40 wpm. Also, you can
type a lot more words before serious fatigue sets in than you can write.
(Or were you addressing the fact that most people can't type AT ALL?)
--
-- David Dyer-Bennet
...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (01/05/89)
In article <1059@ns.UUCP> ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) writes: >In article <83242@sun.uucp> rburns%master@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) writes: >:The theoretical advantages are considerable most people write >:faster than they can type. Good shorthand operators write faster >:than *any* typists. > >Really? I understood that one serious problem in passing a 20-words >per minute morse code test was in writing down the words -- that is, >that few people can write faster than 20 words a minute. > >Most people who can type at all type at least 30-40 wpm. Also, you can >type a lot more words before serious fatigue sets in than you can write. > >(Or were you addressing the fact that most people can't type AT ALL?) I might as well expound on this topic. Longhand is by far the slowest way to transcribe speech or text--no more than 20wpm in general, although there are shorthand-like methods ("speed writing," etc.) that can be useful but which are not generally legible. I'd say 10 wpm is average. A slow, inexperienced touch-typist can do 25-40 wpm. 60 wpm is adequate for secretaries who don't do a whole lot of typing. 80wpm is a nominal speed for secretaries (but probably optimistic). Professional typists can do 90-120 wpm. Human shorthand speeds range from 40-120 wpm, but this will vary a LOT depending on the method (Gregg is the most common, since textbook giant McMillian owns the copyright, but Pitman is faster), and there are probably people who can take shorthand of conversations at 150 wpm. Machine shorthand speeds range from 80-100 wpm to over 200 wpm. Court stenography can be pretty impressive. I've seen transcripts of courtroom dialog (agitated conversation, speakers overlapping, etc.) taken at 240 wpm. At that speed, though, you'll find lots of court reporters who'd gladly swap places with an O'Hare air traffic controller ... I am personally dismayed at the lack of typing competence in the younger generation of computer users. I think it's inexcusable that elementary and high schools allow students to take computer courses without first passing SOME kind of rudimentary keyboard competence test--say, 25 wpm on a blank keyboard. Typing will eventually replace handwriting of (virtually) all forms. It's not a difficult skill to master. It's going to be increasingly important in the future. I can't imagine the time typing 80-90 wpm has saved me writing prototype code and documentation ... -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my -----------|| employer, north carolina state university . . . . . . . . . . .
dave@emerald.PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (01/06/89)
In article <3871@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >I am personally dismayed at the lack of typing competence in the younger >generation of computer users. I think it's inexcusable that elementary and >high schools allow students to take computer courses without first passing >SOME kind of rudimentary keyboard competence test--say, 25 wpm on a blank >keyboard. Typing will eventually replace handwriting of (virtually) all forms. I think I have to disagree. But only in part. Typing is certainly a very useful skill. I learned to touch-type in high school, and have been programming for the intervening 25 years, so I have made a lot of use of the skill. However... 1) I don't believe it's a good idea to put artificial barriers in the way of using a computer. A few years back everybody had to take "computer math" before learning about computers (after all, computers only understood 1's and 0's....). 2) I'm not very dexterous, and even now I probably only type about 50wpm. I wish I could type at 80 wpm--that would probably save me 5 or 10 minutes a day. But what really slows me down is figuring out what to type. 3) My wife has never learned to touch-type, but IS dexterous, and can hunt'n'peck with two fingers faster than I can touch-type. She shouldn't be allowed near a computer? >It's not a difficult skill to master. Compared to what? I took a full year of typing in high school. Besides, it's b-o-r-i-n-g. Let's be realistic, here--learning to type does require a significant investment of time. It may not be cost-effective for everyone. My ten-year old has just started regularly doing her homework on the Mac. It would be nice if she could touch-type, but that's not going to happen--like my wife, she'll get too good at hunt'n'peck to want to go back to square one and start all over. >It's going to be increasingly important in the future. Yes. (Voice input will not become common until 5 or 10 years after the technical problems have been solved, and that still isn't happening.) My guess is that in the near term, most people will learn to use a keyboard effectively, but touch-typing will remain primarily a secretarial skill. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Standard disclaimer: Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is strictly coincidental.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/06/89)
In article <3871@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >I am personally dismayed at the lack of typing competence in the younger >generation of computer users. I think it's inexcusable that elementary and >high schools allow students to take computer courses without first passing >SOME kind of rudimentary keyboard competence test--say, 25 wpm on a blank >keyboard. Typing will eventually replace handwriting of (virtually) all forms. >It's not a difficult skill to master. It's going to be increasingly >important in the future. I can't imagine the time typing 80-90 wpm has >saved me writing prototype code and documentation ... I agree wholeheartedly. My mother taught typing, shorthand and business courses at the high school level for years. When I went to high school typing was the one and only course she said I *had* to take and pass. Given the amount of typing I now do editing software and typing in news articles, I am forever grateful that I can touch type with reasonable speed and accuracy. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
gwills@maths.tcd.ie (Graham Wills) (01/09/89)
In article <1059@ns.UUCP> ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) writes: >:faster than they can type. Good shorthand operators write faster >:than *any* typists. > >Really? I understood that one serious problem in passing a 20-words >per minute morse code test was in writing down the words -- that is, >that few people can write faster than 20 words a minute. > A newly-trained secretary (3 mths training) can usually type at around 40 w.p.m. and take shorthand at 80 w.p.m. I know of one sec. who has an official recorded time of over 200 w.p.m. Beat that with typing. Graham W. TCD, Ireland
dmcintee@netxcom.UUCP (Dave McIntee) (01/11/89)
In article <3871@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >In article <1059@ns.UUCP> ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) writes: >>In article <83242@sun.uucp> rburns%master@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) writes: >>... >>that few people can write faster than 20 words a minute. >>... >>Most people who can type at all type at least 30-40 wpm. Also, you can >... > >Longhand is by far the slowest way to transcribe speech or text--no more than >20wpm in general, although there are shorthand-like methods ("speed writing," >etc.) that can be useful but which are not generally legible. I'd say 10 >wpm is average. > >A slow, inexperienced touch-typist can do 25-40 wpm. 60 wpm is adequate for >secretaries who don't do a whole lot of typing. 80wpm is a nominal speed for >secretaries (but probably optimistic). Professional typists can do 90-120 >wpm. > >Human shorthand speeds range from 40-120 wpm, but this will vary a LOT >... >Machine shorthand speeds range from 80-100 wpm to over 200 wpm. Court And how fast do people speak? -- Dave McIntee NetExpress Communications, Inc. Phone: (703)749-2380 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 300 uunet!netxcom!dmcintee Vienna, VA 22180
flowers@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Margot Flowers) (01/11/89)
>> I think it's inexcusable that elementary and >>high schools allow students to take computer courses without first passing >>SOME kind of rudimentary keyboard competence test--say, 25 wpm on a blank >>keyboard. > >I took a full year of typing in high school. >Besides, it's b-o-r-i-n-g. Let's be realistic, here--learning to type >does require a significant investment of time. It may not be >cost-effective for everyone. I knew someone of the hunt&peck persuasion who decided they wanted to improve, and did so by simply finding out where the fingers go on the touch-type keyboard, and forcing themselves to use the correct finger in the course of their daily computer work. Initially it was slow and required committment. They essentially did the same kinds of exercises that practice drills in touch typing classes have them doing, but without the boredom and waste of time. However, now they can type quite fast, and don't need to look at a keyboard most of the time. I think that all that is necessary is to inform people (whose hands are big enough, hard for little kids) how to use a keyboard properly and then let them continue on with their regular computer activity.
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (01/11/89)
In article <202@maths.tcd.ie> gwills@maths.tcd.ie (Graham Wills) writes:
< A newly-trained secretary (3 mths training) can usually type at around
< 40 w.p.m. and take shorthand at 80 w.p.m. I know of one sec. who has an
< official recorded time of over 200 w.p.m. Beat that with typing.
I wonder how well another trained secretary could READ shorthand taken at
200 w.p.m. (I don't know anything about shorthand.) But if the 200 wpm
shorthand is not readable by computer (remember this whole discussion is
about input devices), then it wouldn't do much good.
Shirley Kehrjnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (01/12/89)
In article <1124@netxcom.UUCP> dmcintee@netxcom.UUCP (Dave McIntee) writes: In article <3871@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >Longhand is by far the slowest way to transcribe speech or text--no more than >20wpm in general, although there are shorthand-like methods ("speed writing," >etc.) that can be useful but which are not generally legible. I'd say 10 >wpm is average. > >A slow, inexperienced touch-typist can do 25-40 wpm. 60 wpm is adequate for >secretaries who don't do a whole lot of typing. 80wpm is a nominal speed for >secretaries (but probably optimistic). Professional typists can do 90-120 >wpm. > >Human shorthand speeds range from 40-120 wpm, but this will vary a LOT >... >Machine shorthand speeds range from 80-100 wpm to over 200 wpm. Court And how fast do people speak? Around 100wpm, but that varies a whole lot. Speech can sound normal (not artificially fast) at 150 wpm, and on the other hand, your Texas oilman who has all day to dictate a letter may drawl it out at 60 wpm. There is dictation equipment available that can slow down recorded speech (to a manageable 60-80 wpm) without significantly altering its tonal qualities and pitch. Of course, most secretaries still use the machines with start/stop/rewind pedals. Someone else mentioned he knew or had heard of a secretary with a recorded manual shorthand speed of 200 wpm. Pretty impressive. I had never heard of anyone transcribing at that speed without a machine ... -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my -----------|| employer, north carolina state university . . . . . . . . . . .
@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU:miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (01/12/89)
From: Brad Miller <miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 89 16:27:24 GMT
From: jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall)
Someone else mentioned he knew or had heard of a secretary with a recorded
manual shorthand speed of 200 wpm. Pretty impressive. I had never heard of
anyone transcribing at that speed without a machine ...
On the other hand, I read in Technology Review about a year ago that
Kurzweil makes a machine that has a 10k word vocabulary that can type from
spoken text at a 200wpm rate... and it doesn't take coffee breaks.
----
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.
miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller}reeck@lclark.UUCP (David Reeck) (01/14/89)
In article <3882@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >In article <1124@netxcom.UUCP> dmcintee@netxcom.UUCP (Dave McIntee) writes: > In article <3871@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: > > And how fast do people speak? > >Around 100wpm, but that varies a whole lot. Speech can sound normal (not >artificially fast) at 150 wpm, and on the other hand, your Texas oilman who >has all day to dictate a letter may drawl it out at 60 wpm. Closer to 180 on average, 240 is quite fast, and at 260 you give court reporters trouble. From the mouth of aforementioned court reporter... Love, Dave Reeck !tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck .Sig-less Stardust -- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// David Reeck !tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck // // Home of the Pio's -- Pio's of what you ask? Well, we're researching that...//\\ "