Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [agile-usability] QWERTY, mouse, and novel input

Expand Messages
  • Larry Constantine
    ... we ... single ... On many occasions while sharing dimsum I have been impressed by what can be accomplished with chopsticks. ;-) --Larry Constantine, IDSA
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 8, 2005
      > Josh replies: Buxton also said (at your last forUSE conference) something
      > like this: as long as we are interacting with the computer using a mouse,
      we
      > are interacting with the world using the equivalent of the point of a
      single
      > chopstick. That gives us the manipulative power of a fruitfly!

      On many occasions while sharing dimsum I have been impressed by what can be
      accomplished with chopsticks. ;-)

      --Larry Constantine, IDSA
    • Larry Constantine
      ... Another interesting example. Audio noting to the chart, whether supported by speech-to-text software or human transcription is a must-have function in
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 8, 2005
        Ron Vutpakdi wrote:

        > Just as an aside: the doctors and psychologists that I know who use
        > speech to text for dictation do so because it's faster for them to
        > dictate reports rather than typing (not that they can't type). They
        > can do so while walking around or even just sitting at their desk, but
        > speaking is faster than typing.
        >
        > In their cases, with a special dictionary and training, the
        > recognition is generally better than 95% since the vocabulary used is
        > considerably more limited than full speech.
        >
        > Many doctors and psychologists still dictate reports/evaluations to a
        > phone service which then uses a person to transcribe the reports.

        Another interesting example. Audio noting to the chart, whether supported by
        speech-to-text software or human transcription is a must-have function in
        modern medical informatics, but that does not mean it is truly efficient or
        sufficiently reliable to meet real medical practice objectives. Because of
        the high potential for errors (95% accuracy sounds good until you turn it
        around: 1 out of 20 words is wrong), transcribed audio does not become part
        of the legal patient record until the dictating clinician reviews and signs
        off on the transcription. Reviewing for errors and correcting is a somewhat
        tedious process and itself quite error prone, particularly as clinicians
        typically do so at a later time when the context is no longer fresh in their
        heads. Transcribed audio, even after review, correction, and sign-off, has a
        significantly higher error rate than directly entered notes and orders.

        I don't know if the analysis has been done in medical settings, but in other
        contexts, when all activities in the process are taken into
        account(including slowed speech, repetition and correction on the fly,
        review and editing), the effective total throughput is almost invariably
        less than even slow direct keyboard entry. We can process up to about 400
        wpm when heard and rapid speech clocks at nearly 200 wpm, although 120-160
        is considered tops for persuasive communication. The best commercial
        "trained" speech-to-text systems are typically only good to about 100 wpm.
        But, users typically find they can spend as much time correcting errors as
        dictating (some report as much as 2-3 times). So effective throughput drops
        to well within the range of typical typing (30-60 wpm).

        That said, it can still be more efficient use of the clinician's time if
        notes and orders can be dictated while moving between patients or while
        riding the subway. (Although HIPAA compliance may become an issue in the
        latter case.)

        I think audio notes and orders could actually diminish in use over time, at
        least in the short run, because the new generation of clinicians has grown
        up with computers. My personal physician does all his own notes and orders
        directly into the medical system, typing away at 100+ words/minute. When I
        commented, he mentioned growing up with computers and video games, then
        added that being a musician also helped!

        --Larry Constantine, IDSA
      • Desilets, Alain
        I don t know if the analysis has been done in medical settings, but in other contexts, when all activities in the process are taken into account(including
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 8, 2005
          I don't know if the analysis has been done in medical settings, but in
          other contexts, when all activities in the process are taken into
          account(including slowed speech, repetition and correction on the fly,
          review and editing), the effective total throughput is almost invariably
          less than even slow direct keyboard entry. We can process up to about
          400 wpm when heard and rapid speech clocks at nearly 200 wpm, although
          120-160 is considered tops for persuasive communication. The best
          commercial "trained" speech-to-text systems are typically only good to
          about 100 wpm. But, users typically find they can spend as much time
          correcting errors as dictating (some report as much as 2-3 times). So
          effective throughput drops to well within the range of typical typing
          (30-60 wpm).

          -- Alain:
          In one of the projects I worked on (computer-assisted transcription of
          the debates at the House of Commons of Canada), we did some WOZ
          experiments with professional transcribers and found that we broke even
          when the speech recognition system had an accuracy of around 85%. In
          other words, when accuracy was above 85%, it took less time to correct
          errors in the transcription than to transcribe from scratch for the raw
          audio.
          ----
        • elise_urbanek
          ... From a linguistics point of view, FYI, they re considered different varieties of the same language. :)
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 25, 2005
            --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Vutpakdi" <vutpakdi@a...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Darn, just before I was going fire off an angry reply. ;-)
            >
            > Seriously, I think that part of this discussion highlights what I've
            > thought for many years (starting back when I was primarily a
            > developer): the hardest part of software development (in a team) isn't
            > the technology, the architecture, or the interaction design: it's the
            > people aspect of working in a team and working with those outside of
            > the team proper.
            >
            > Seems to me that cross cultural communication and understanding is one
            > of the biggest challenges where the "cross cultural" could be the
            > result of different disciplines, cultures, languages, locations,
            > and/or previous experiences. I'm currently slamming my head against
            > this particular brick wall. Most of the developers that I'm working
            > with are in Scotland and have never worked with an interaction
            > designer before. So I've got the discipline, location, culture, and
            > previous experience divide to bridge (some would also argue that
            > Scottish English counts as a different language than American English
            > :-) ).


            From a linguistics point of view, FYI, they're considered different
            'varieties' of the same language. :)
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.