that's like saying that humans aren't more functional by virtue of having a large vocabulary rather than small vocabulary.


because they're perfectly good examples that most people should be able to get?

Iain

and i thought Paul was missing the point....

Iain

The pixel density beyond which is the eye cannot resolve details is not an absolute constant, it's relative to the distance between eye and screen.

...because there's a point per thread quotient?

Although having "natural-language" voice capabilities is technically brilliant. Paul's point is really: does it let you get to the information you want to have more quickly or easily. Paul thinks it doesn't. You're saying these things are just additive and so better.

I'm talking about another method (visual) of getting the same information. Point that even conversation isn't necessarily the most efficient way of getting that information which makes any addition nice but fairly irrelevant; reinforcing Paul's point but from a different angle.

Speaktoit. Been playing around with it for a while. Whilst Sam, for that is her name when requested, was asked, Apple like "will I need an umbrella today", she didn't have a clue, although she perfectly understood what I meant when I asked what the weather was like today. She then told me to put on GPS in order to pinpoint my location. Now, no doubt Siri would have told me to put on my long johns, turn the heating on and go make a nice hot cup of tea.

No, I'm not in the employ of Apple. In truth it was probably a reaction the the "Have Apple lost it" thread, to redress the balance. The concept that Apple have lost it on the weekend that they sold 4 million of their new model is just laughable.

sure - but i thought the 300-350dpi density was the point at which details cannot be resolved when the source is right in front of you.

in which case, how close does a phone need to be to someone's eyes, or how zoomed in does it need to be, before they can appreciate a pixel density greater than 350dpi?

Iain

actually, Paul's point seemed to be that, for example, being able to say:

do i need an umbrella today? (or presumably any number of natural language questions) was no improvement on saying specific things reliant on specific keywords.

i would say that it absolutely makes a difference, in the same way that human to human conversation benefits by not having to rely on a much narrower vocabulary reliant on specific keywords.

your point about having the weather on your home screen missed the point because Siri is able to retrieve all manner of information that you couldn't possibly have on your home screen. not to mention its dictation functionality.

if all Siri was for was providing weather info, then your point would have been a lot better.

Iain

Strictly, I was saying it had little improvement in functionality. I recognise it's a step forward, but don't consider it a leap forward.

But we're going round in circles, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

OK - so presumably if people had to rely on a more primitive language with a limited vocabulary reliant on specific keywords, you wouldn't think that much of a leap backwards from the rich language we now use.

Iain

I still don't accept that natural language is necessarily more efficient or easier. It's not like you have to memorise command words with the alternative. Is saying something less direct like "I want to eat italian tonight" really so much better than "search pizza restaurant". In terms of UK anyway, Siri can't do a local search so the usefulness is limited in that way compared to other platforms that can do a voice local search.

All platforms can do dictation as far as I'm aware.

I figured you'd make the wider use argument for siri. The point is that my phone is personal so I can craft it to instantly show me the information that I want to see on a regular basis. Weather was just one example of many. Live Tiles aren't a replacement for voice search but my point is that in many situations, other mediums e.g. visual can be more efficient than a conversation.

I do accept that conversation search can be nicer though so I agree it's something that would be popular.

so in real life do you think natural language is better / preferable / advantageous in any way compared to using a more limited vocabulary?

the above example only highlights to me why voice recognition has so far been met with an almighty meh.

people instinctively would say something normally, realise that they can't just say something as natural, and then have to say something more specific.

and after having to do that a few times, just think 'bugger it, i can't be arsed with it if i'm going to have to think so carefully about exactly what to say, and how exactly to say it.'.

saying something like "search pizza restaurant" actually does become that bit harder to (instinctively) say precisely because its not something most people would normally say.

to be honest, i can't believe the idea that understanding natural language is a significant improvement in voice recognition is being met with such opposition.

Iain

Here's one for anybody who may know how I'd go about doing this...

I have a 4S and like it a lot (it's my first iPhone). As a visually impaired user, I find the texting/iMessage keyboard a bit time consuming (I do use the Voice Over feature, but it's still fairly time-consuming).

Does anybody know if - and if so, how - I can change the keyboard layout for a numberpad-style layout, just like the one that's used when you enter the phone numbers when adding a contact.

Quite a specific question, I know, but any help would be greatly appreciated.

I think the use of the "will I need an umbrella today" example is a bad idea, as who would say that in natural language? You're much more likely to say "what's the weather like?" than that. I agree that using natural language elsewhere like "i feel like a pizza" or "remind me to phone my parents tomorrow at 8" is a lot better than "search pizza restaurants" or "new event phone parents tomorrow 8". But ultimately, the fact remains that in the long run once people are over the novelty factor, very few will continue to use Siri to run their lives, as talking to your phone in public is just weird.

I like that SpeakToIt Assistant has the option to type in your request too, so you don't have to always use voice commands when it's not appropriate to do so.

I think this is a really sensible post on the issue. There are clear reasons why natural language is better. The weather example isn't a good one, and neither is the one from the advert, with someone saying, "Siri, I'm locked out!" and it searching for local locksmiths. It's good for it to be able to understand natural language because you don't have to remember a list of specific commands. It just makes it easier to interact with the system. But nobody is going to be talking to Siri like it's a person ... not unless they're mental!

i don't think the umbrella example is that unusual.

if someone can see what the weather is like, and its a bit grey and overcast, i can easily imagine the following conversation:

'do you think i'll need an umbrella today?'

'nah, you'll be OK' / 'yeah - i would if i were you...'

and people may well never get used to using it in public, but i think there are still likely to be situations where people would use it.

Iain

It looks like when the HTC Vigor is out, the highest ppi count will go to an android phone. The Vigor is rumoured to have a 4.3" screen with a ppi of ~342 and a resolution of 720 x 1280 pixels.

The LG True HD IPS display is 4.5" so the quite meaningless PPI count is certainly higher in the HTC.

I'd much rather have that LG screen which needs less Zoom.
Both are 720p which is no doubt quite useful when connecting via HDMI.