|
|
|
|
|
by JackC
5142 days ago
|
|
I think there will be some things it's great at and some it's terrible at. Here's one for free: how about using this to create the Rosetta Stone of sign language? Or a portable sign-to-speech translator? (These are hard problems for other reasons, but this thing brings you a lot closer.) Think of it like this: Alan Kay isn't wrong, but you could say the same thing about any input. The mouse is a very bad input device. It takes forever to use it for on-screen typing. The keyboard is a very bad input device. It can't tell how hard you're hitting each key when you do musical typing in GarageBand. The microphone is a very bad input device. Voice control is way slower than just clicking the menu item you want ... If this thing is real, then within a couple of years there will be a dozen reasons to refuse to buy a computer without one. |
|
You're papering over the problems with relativism.
The keyboard is rapid to use and flexible. Although it has the possibility of physical health problems with RSI, with light pen interaction you have the certainty of pain and fatigue. Sign speakers don't need sign-to-speech - there are keyboards already. There's been multiple attempts at text to speech as well, and the result is more fiddly, less flexible and less rapid than you can get with a keyboard.
There could be an argument that keyboards are complicated and have a learning curve. But computers are the super-tool of our age. Why would you not learn use of a tool that gives you combines great power with flexibility.
I think we still have discussions about alternative user interfaces that hark back to the way humans interact with each other because most of the population are not yet expert keyboard users. This will change. Once the developed world is flush with expert keyboard users, user interfaces will go back to putting greater emphasis on them.