--- In [email protected], "martyboi" <martyboi@...> wrote: > > The perfection of voice-to-text technologies, coupled > with the inevitable acceptance of simplified English > (like u, ur, etc.) and anticipatory word selection > (from a limited corporate-approved dictionary) may > eliminate even the two-finger technique and change > what acceptable written text looks and "sounds" like. > Further, topic based writing requirements using data > defining techniques (XML)to satisfy the need to write > once and display everywhere (phone, terminal, help > screens, web) will create completely uniform output > eliminating the "voice" of the writer. Eventually > meta-writing techniques, which enable systems to > become self documenting, will emerge. > > Here's what it may look like :-) > > Press zee red boottun tu stert zee system. Veeet fur > system ineetielizeshun und zeen oopee zee inpoot cufer. > > http://www.tuco.de/home/jschef.htm
I agree with *some* of what you say, but doubt seriously that "tweetspeak" will become the norm. It is *already* one of potential "black marks" held against people in the corporate world, and the ability to write traditional English is still valued. Executives have actually seen their careers plateau and be barred from further pro- motions because of their inability to write clear English, relying instead on the gibberish churned out by engines such as this. So although what you suggest may happen in time, I don't expect that time to come anytime soon. As for speech-to-text systems becoming more prev- alent, that is a given. What they translate *into* is another question. XML is also a given, in business/software contexts. Almost everything we write at IBM is in XML. As for "corporate-approved dictionaries," I have to live every day with a piece of software called Acrolinx, which scans every XML document I write and *forces* it to comply with the IBM Style Guide. This is often a hilarious interaction, because after all it's a piece of software, and often either makes funny mistakes, or tries to force us to actually violate English grammar and spelling to comply with what it thinks are the "right" standards. I understand the need for it -- they're a global corporation employing literally thousands of tech writers, and they have to try to find a way to make their output sound as if it had all come from the same corporate "voice." But it does provide many moments of amusement as it tries -- and fails -- to cover all possible situations with a very limited vocabulary and rule set. The cost of translation is also a factor in this push towards standardized language. The less variation there is in the writing, the easier (and thus cheaper) the cost of translating that writing into 40 different languages.
