Windows Speech Recognition Macros?

[John Doe]

Anybody use them?

[BillW50]

On 11/10/2012 11:40 AM, John Doe wrote:
> Anybody use them?

I have tried them off and on since 1985. And so far, they haven't
improved very much in the past 27 years IMHO.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

[John Doe]

BillW50 <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:

>> Anybody use them?
>
> I have tried them

This subject is a different "them".

> off and on since 1985. And so far, they haven't improved very
> much in the past 27 years IMHO.

Apparently the thing is talking about speech recognition for
dictation, obviously, since speech activated scripting/macroing is
relatively new in Windows. And there is no such thing as speech
activated scripting in other operating systems.

Power users who have been put off by speech recognition for
dictation should not be discouraged from trying speech recognition
for scripting/macroing. For a macro enthusiast, speech activated
scripting leaves keyboard activated scripting in the dust. There
is no comparison between the two, it's a whole new world. Since a
command vocabulary is tiny compared to a human vocabulary, the
stupid computer has a much easier time recognizing commands (as
opposed to recognizing speech).

--











>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
> Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
>

> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: BillW50 <BillW50 aol.kom>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-8
> Subject: Re: Windows Speech Recognition Macros?
> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:33:31 -0600
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 10
> Message-ID: <k7mdms$b4v$2 dont-email.me>
> References: <k7m3it$9k1$2 dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:33:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a4e1ea6240c4386ead63d7468420e968"; logging-data="11423"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VB5hJ+b7iw4ix0lwqyrBk"
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
> In-Reply-To: <k7m3it$9k1$2 dont-email.me>
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 121110-1, 11/10/2012), Outbound message
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:6h3oQ/ElZBWUCFcJZOfumVrnfgM=
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-8:1107
>

[BillW50]

On 11/10/2012 4:20 PM, John Doe wrote:
> BillW50<BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>> Anybody use them?
>>
>> I have tried them
>
> This subject is a different "them".
>
>> off and on since 1985. And so far, they haven't improved very
>> much in the past 27 years IMHO.
>
> Apparently the thing is talking about speech recognition for
> dictation, obviously, since speech activated scripting/macroing is
> relatively new in Windows. And there is no such thing as speech
> activated scripting in other operating systems.

Really? Back in the late 80's, I was using it on a Commodore 64 (8-bit).
The Mac back then also had software to do the same, but I didn't play
much with with it. With the Commodore it could only understand like 64
words that you recorded. Not a lot, but better than nothing.

Around the year 2000 I bought a Kyocera QCP3035 cell phone. It too would
act on voice commands. It also had a speaker phone so everything was
hands free if you wanted it too. And if the phone rang and you said
Answer, it would answer the phone on speaker phone if you wanted it too.
Saying yes, no, and answer it got pretty well on the first try.

Although trying to speed dial was a different matter. If I asked to call
Pat, it might sometimes and ask "Call Dad?" And I would say no, call
Pat. And it might get it right on the second or third attempt. And I
always found using the keys for speed dial was far faster than arguing
with it.

I bought my first netbook which only came with Xandros (Linux) back in
2007 and it had speech recognition as well (Asus EeePC). Although it was
limited to launching applications I believe. If you say mail for
example, Thunderbird would pop up on the screen. That worked pretty
well. But typing or clicking was still faster so I wasn't too impressed.

> Power users who have been put off by speech recognition for
> dictation should not be discouraged from trying speech recognition
> for scripting/macroing. For a macro enthusiast, speech activated
> scripting leaves keyboard activated scripting in the dust. There
> is no comparison between the two, it's a whole new world. Since a
> command vocabulary is tiny compared to a human vocabulary, the
> stupid computer has a much easier time recognizing commands (as
> opposed to recognizing speech).

My mom asked me to install and set up Dragon NaturallySpeaking software.
She has tremors very badly and typing or clicking is very hard for her.
But she can speak well. I did everything I could except to train it to
her voice. And she never got it to work well at all.

I don't know, I have seen this stuff for the past 27 years and I am
still not impressed. I don't know if the next 27 years will be better,
but I am not holding my breath for it. :-(

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

[John Doe]

You might have to train your voice. You have to have a good
speaking voice. Few people do. Public speakers do. Once you learn
how to use speech recognition, you become able to recognize the
difference between lousy and good speech. There is a wide
variation among speakers.

But, this thing keeps harping on the dictation. And, again, that's
not what I'm talking about, that's not the subject of this thread.
This thing can't speak clearly, that's its problem.

--

BillW50 <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: BillW50 <BillW50 aol.kom>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-8
> Subject: Re: Windows Speech Recognition Macros?
> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:49:18 -0600
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 64
> Message-ID: <k7mp5v$h9u$1 dont-email.me>
> References: <k7m3it$9k1$2 dont-email.me> <k7mdms$b4v$2 dont-email.me> <k7mjva$k1r$1 dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:49:19 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a4e1ea6240c4386ead63d7468420e968"; logging-data="17726"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+p0bcXj35U3gY260QWsbjc"
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
> In-Reply-To: <k7mjva$k1r$1 dont-email.me>
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 121110-1, 11/10/2012), Outbound message
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:KIvj5P37G6NdSMLeYTWqC+btuD8=
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-8:1112
>
> On 11/10/2012 4:20 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> BillW50<BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>
>>>> Anybody use them?
>>>
>>> I have tried them
>>
>> This subject is a different "them".
>>
>>> off and on since 1985. And so far, they haven't improved very
>>> much in the past 27 years IMHO.
>>
>> Apparently the thing is talking about speech recognition for
>> dictation, obviously, since speech activated scripting/macroing is
>> relatively new in Windows. And there is no such thing as speech
>> activated scripting in other operating systems.
>
> Really? Back in the late 80's, I was using it on a Commodore 64 (8-bit).
> The Mac back then also had software to do the same, but I didn't play
> much with with it. With the Commodore it could only understand like 64
> words that you recorded. Not a lot, but better than nothing.
>
> Around the year 2000 I bought a Kyocera QCP3035 cell phone. It too would
> act on voice commands. It also had a speaker phone so everything was
> hands free if you wanted it too. And if the phone rang and you said
> Answer, it would answer the phone on speaker phone if you wanted it too.
> Saying yes, no, and answer it got pretty well on the first try.
>
> Although trying to speed dial was a different matter. If I asked to call
> Pat, it might sometimes and ask "Call Dad?" And I would say no, call
> Pat. And it might get it right on the second or third attempt. And I
> always found using the keys for speed dial was far faster than arguing
> with it.
>
> I bought my first netbook which only came with Xandros (Linux) back in
> 2007 and it had speech recognition as well (Asus EeePC). Although it was
> limited to launching applications I believe. If you say mail for
> example, Thunderbird would pop up on the screen. That worked pretty
> well. But typing or clicking was still faster so I wasn't too impressed.
>
>> Power users who have been put off by speech recognition for
>> dictation should not be discouraged from trying speech recognition
>> for scripting/macroing. For a macro enthusiast, speech activated
>> scripting leaves keyboard activated scripting in the dust. There
>> is no comparison between the two, it's a whole new world. Since a
>> command vocabulary is tiny compared to a human vocabulary, the
>> stupid computer has a much easier time recognizing commands (as
>> opposed to recognizing speech).
>
> My mom asked me to install and set up Dragon NaturallySpeaking software.
> She has tremors very badly and typing or clicking is very hard for her.
> But she can speak well. I did everything I could except to train it to
> her voice. And she never got it to work well at all.
>
> I don't know, I have seen this stuff for the past 27 years and I am
> still not impressed. I don't know if the next 27 years will be better,
> but I am not holding my breath for it. :-(
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
> Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
>
>

[Chris S.[_4_]]

"BillW50" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/10/2012 4:20 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> BillW50<BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>
>>>> Anybody use them?
>>>
>>> I have tried them
>>
>> This subject is a different "them".
>>
>>> off and on since 1985. And so far, they haven't improved very
>>> much in the past 27 years IMHO.
>>
>> Apparently the thing is talking about speech recognition for
>> dictation, obviously, since speech activated scripting/macroing is
>> relatively new in Windows. And there is no such thing as speech
>> activated scripting in other operating systems.
>
> Really? Back in the late 80's, I was using it on a Commodore 64 (8-bit).
> The Mac back then also had software to do the same, but I didn't play much
> with with it. With the Commodore it could only understand like 64 words
> that you recorded. Not a lot, but better than nothing.
>
> Around the year 2000 I bought a Kyocera QCP3035 cell phone. It too would
> act on voice commands. It also had a speaker phone so everything was hands
> free if you wanted it too. And if the phone rang and you said Answer, it
> would answer the phone on speaker phone if you wanted it too. Saying yes,
> no, and answer it got pretty well on the first try.
>
> Although trying to speed dial was a different matter. If I asked to call
> Pat, it might sometimes and ask "Call Dad?" And I would say no, call Pat.
> And it might get it right on the second or third attempt. And I always
> found using the keys for speed dial was far faster than arguing with it.
>
> I bought my first netbook which only came with Xandros (Linux) back in
> 2007 and it had speech recognition as well (Asus EeePC). Although it was
> limited to launching applications I believe. If you say mail for example,
> Thunderbird would pop up on the screen. That worked pretty well. But
> typing or clicking was still faster so I wasn't too impressed.
>
>> Power users who have been put off by speech recognition for
>> dictation should not be discouraged from trying speech recognition
>> for scripting/macroing. For a macro enthusiast, speech activated
>> scripting leaves keyboard activated scripting in the dust. There
>> is no comparison between the two, it's a whole new world. Since a
>> command vocabulary is tiny compared to a human vocabulary, the
>> stupid computer has a much easier time recognizing commands (as
>> opposed to recognizing speech).
>
> My mom asked me to install and set up Dragon NaturallySpeaking software.
> She has tremors very badly and typing or clicking is very hard for her.
> But she can speak well. I did everything I could except to train it to her
> voice. And she never got it to work well at all.
>
> I don't know, I have seen this stuff for the past 27 years and I am still
> not impressed. I don't know if the next 27 years will be better, but I am
> not holding my breath for it. :-(
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
> Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

"I did everything I could except to train it to
her voice."

I think we've found your problem.... ;)

Chris

[John Doe]

"Chris S." <cside38 nospamverizon.net> wrote:

> "I did everything I could except to train it to her voice."
>
> I think we've found your problem.... ;)

Lots of people say that training is useful. They also say that you
need a high quality microphone. I spent at least a year training
my own voice, using a digital voice recorder, listening to every
recording immediately after making it. I think that training my
voice is what got it to work. I use the built-in sound on my
motherboard, plus a 5+ year old inexpensive Logitech USB
microphone.

Coping with having to correct stupid computer errors might be the
most difficult part. I have used speech with hardware and/or
software configurations that can cause the recognition to
periodically diminish. It's almost like the computer has moods.
Maybe that (among other things) turns people off. Those short and
strange periods of bad recognition have happened plenty, but not
for months. If the speech recognition program gracefully combines
dictation and commands, like Naturally Speaking does, it's a
powerful tool, especially for writing. I use lots of self-made
editing commands while writing.

--












>
> Chris
>
>

[Paul]

John Doe wrote:
> You might have to train your voice. You have to have a good
> speaking voice. Few people do. Public speakers do. Once you learn
> how to use speech recognition, you become able to recognize the
> difference between lousy and good speech. There is a wide
> variation among speakers.
>
> But, this thing keeps harping on the dictation. And, again, that's
> not what I'm talking about, that's not the subject of this thread.
> This thing can't speak clearly, that's its problem.
>

"Why isn't Microsoft's answer to Siri built into Windows 8?"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013596/why-isnt-microsofts-answer-to-siri-built-into-windows-8.html

That's the closest I could find, to an article that addresses
how much Microsoft cares about speech.

Windows 8, looks like a job for third-party software.
I.e. Pay for a Windows 8 version of your favorite third-party package.

*******

In the article here, is a suggestion as to how speech recognition
can handle voice distortion caused by stress (i.e. a bad voice...).
It's the suggestion they always use for speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_recognition

"Working with Swedish pilots flying in the JAS-39 Gripen cockpit,
Englund (2004) found recognition deteriorated with increasing
G-loads. It was also concluded that adaptation greatly improved
the results in all cases and introducing models for breathing
was shown to improve recognition scores significantly.

Contrary to what might be expected, no effects of the broken
English of the speakers were found. It was evident that
spontaneous speech caused problems for the recognizer, as
could be expected.

A restricted vocabulary, and above all, a proper syntax, could
thus be expected to improve recognition accuracy substantially."

HTH,
Paul

[BillW50]

In ,
John Doe typed on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:20:27 +0000 (UTC):
> BillW50 <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>> Anybody use them?
>>
>> I have tried them
>
> This subject is a different "them".
>
>> off and on since 1985. And so far, they haven't improved very
>> much in the past 27 years IMHO.
>
> Apparently the thing is talking about speech recognition for
> dictation, obviously, since speech activated scripting/macroing is
> relatively new in Windows. And there is no such thing as speech
> activated scripting in other operating systems.
>
> Power users who have been put off by speech recognition for
> dictation should not be discouraged from trying speech recognition
> for scripting/macroing. For a macro enthusiast, speech activated
> scripting leaves keyboard activated scripting in the dust. There
> is no comparison between the two, it's a whole new world. Since a
> command vocabulary is tiny compared to a human vocabulary, the
> stupid computer has a much easier time recognizing commands (as
> opposed to recognizing speech).

How is this different than with Xandros (Linux) Voice Command utility?
Which allows you to open applications and shutdown the computer by voice
commands. Here is the list of available voice commands.

Computer Music
Computer Clock
Computer Dictionary
Computer Notes
Computer Calculator
Computer Camera
Computer Photo
Computer Shutdown
Computer Movie
Computer Mail
Computer Telephone
Computer Messenger
Computer Network
Computer Web

Sure it is limited in commands. But the idea is the same. Nor is there
any training required. It seems to understand anybody.

REF: page 4-45 of the EeePC 4G/8G manual

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

[John Doe]

Of course you can do everything in Linux.
"Somewhere, over the rainbow... la la la"
In other words, Bilbo is full of it.

--

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: "BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-8
> Subject: Re: Windows Speech Recognition Macros?
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:58:56 -0600
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 59
> Message-ID: <k7oi02$c2v$1 dont-email.me>
> References: <k7m3it$9k1$2 dont-email.me> <k7mdms$b4v$2 dont-email.me> <k7mjva$k1r$1 dont-email.me>
> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:58:58 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a4e1ea6240c4386ead63d7468420e968"; logging-data="12383"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+m277iZH214WfogQRhq/6q"
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 121111-0, 11/11/2012), Outbound message
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:m1qNlBvzvL1WZuVWrRMcEfN0z18=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-8:1128
>
> In news:k7mjva$k1r$1 dont-email.me,
> John Doe typed on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:20:27 +0000 (UTC):
>> BillW50 <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>
>>>> Anybody use them?
>>>
>>> I have tried them
>>
>> This subject is a different "them".
>>
>>> off and on since 1985. And so far, they haven't improved very
>>> much in the past 27 years IMHO.
>>
>> Apparently the thing is talking about speech recognition for
>> dictation, obviously, since speech activated scripting/macroing is
>> relatively new in Windows. And there is no such thing as speech
>> activated scripting in other operating systems.
>>
>> Power users who have been put off by speech recognition for
>> dictation should not be discouraged from trying speech recognition
>> for scripting/macroing. For a macro enthusiast, speech activated
>> scripting leaves keyboard activated scripting in the dust. There
>> is no comparison between the two, it's a whole new world. Since a
>> command vocabulary is tiny compared to a human vocabulary, the
>> stupid computer has a much easier time recognizing commands (as
>> opposed to recognizing speech).
>
> How is this different than with Xandros (Linux) Voice Command utility?
> Which allows you to open applications and shutdown the computer by voice
> commands. Here is the list of available voice commands.
>
> Computer Music
> Computer Clock
> Computer Dictionary
> Computer Notes
> Computer Calculator
> Computer Camera
> Computer Photo
> Computer Shutdown
> Computer Movie
> Computer Mail
> Computer Telephone
> Computer Messenger
> Computer Network
> Computer Web
>
> Sure it is limited in commands. But the idea is the same. Nor is there
> any training required. It seems to understand anybody.
>
> REF: page 4-45 of the EeePC 4G/8G manual
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
> Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
>
>
>
>

[BillW50]

In ,
John Doe typed on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:06:26 +0000 (UTC):
> Of course you can do everything in Linux.
> "Somewhere, over the rainbow... la la la"
> In other words, Bilbo is full of it.

Oh is that so, John? For your information, I am the guy who calls Linux
nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. That is because I find it slightly
better than my 1999 Palm IIIc PDA. And second of all, every Xandros
license sold, Microsoft gets 50 bucks. So I don't know what is wrong
with your thinking cap? But I think it is time for a new one. ;-)

Does Anyone Still Use Xandros? | Techrights
http://techrights.org/2011/08/21/xandros-ussage/

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

[John Doe]

So much babbling...

--

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: "BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-8,free.UseNet,free.spam,free.spirit
> Subject: Re: Windows Speech Recognition Macros?
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:53:52 -0600
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <k7os82$fj9$1 dont-email.me>
> References: <k7m3it$9k1$2 dont-email.me> <k7mdms$b4v$2 dont-email.me> <k7mjva$k1r$1 dont-email.me> <k7oi02$c2v$1 dont-email.me> <k7olui$49p$1 dont-email.me>
> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:53:55 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a4e1ea6240c4386ead63d7468420e968"; logging-data="15977"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ayCfU82bEf27svz0zs6fT"
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 121111-0, 11/11/2012), Outbound message
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:vk3nA/mFhNR2Ji1XjP4d83FGGnw=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-8:1136 free.spam:9446 free.spirit:776
>
> In news:k7olui$49p$1 dont-email.me,
> John Doe typed on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:06:26 +0000 (UTC):
>> Of course you can do everything in Linux.
>> "Somewhere, over the rainbow... la la la"
>> In other words, Bilbo is full of it.
>
> Oh is that so, John? For your information, I am the guy who calls Linux
> nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. That is because I find it slightly
> better than my 1999 Palm IIIc PDA. And second of all, every Xandros
> license sold, Microsoft gets 50 bucks. So I don't know what is wrong
> with your thinking cap? But I think it is time for a new one. ;-)
>
> Does Anyone Still Use Xandros? | Techrights
> http://techrights.org/2011/08/21/xandros-ussage/
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
> Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
>
>
>
>
>

[BillW50]

On 11/11/2012 3:33 PM, John Doe wrote:
> So much babbling...

Do you ever get anything right John? If so, what?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66 GHz - 2GB - Windows 8 CP