Hi Michael,
Actually, we are very close to the full voice input and voice output
type system you are talking about. For the last few Windows versions
Microsoft has included speech recognition software as well as the
Narrator screen reader. From what I've seen of the Windows 8 versions
Narrator has become a lot better than prior versions, is more like
Apple's Voiceover, and the speech recognition in Win 8 is much improved
as well. I still think Dragon is better than Microsoft Speech
Recognition, but for a free voice input software its pretty decent.
As to your point about high definition I don't think anyone actually
uses their cell phone or tablet for that kind of thing. Remember there
are alternative devices for that such as 80 inch flat screen plasma
displays and blue ray DVD players for watching movies and high
definition video. Who needs a computer when they can have a home theater
like that.
Same goes for playing games. Truth is that the XBox 360, Play Station
III, Wii, etc is where the major game market is right now. Yes, there
are still PC games being made, but a lot of the gamers I know don't use
their PC so much for games. Instead they use their XBox, connect it to a
high definition flat screen TV, and on a 60 inch flat screen TV its much
better than on a 20 inch monitor.
Bottom line, my point is there are alternatives to the PC already. You
are still thinking in terms of the PC being an all in one device, but
that's changing as newer and better alternatives appear.
cheers!
On 3/13/2012 7:55 PM, Michael Gauler wrote:
All of this might be true...
But I have several questions.
If mobile devices and new technologies are created and let's say
touchscreens are so great, why not take it up another level and
finally create a computer system like the fictional LCARS from Star
Trek, where you have instant access to your data and where you have
the option of full real time interactive voice control plus voice
output of everything?
Surely voice input and output shouldn't be desired by blind users in
the world alone, it could be adapted for everyone.
And the other thing I am wondering about is the usage of mobile
devices in general.
I was born blind and could never see, nor do I currently have a device
like an IPhone...
But I'd like to ask anyone who could see at some point in their life
to tell me why watching some HD videos on super small mobile displays
or playing complex and graphically intensive games with said small
devices instead of using more stationary devices and large screens
capable of handling digital HD media?
I can understand why people would like to have more functions in small
devices. But things like listening to music with more than two
speakers like 5.1 or 7.1 audio systems or watching high resolution
movies and such surely should remain on the currently needed
technology instead of being ported to small devices unless you can
adapt them as well to handle all this.
I don't know what the processing capabilities of android phones are or
what said capabilities are for other mobile devices, but I doubt that
they are really better than current high tech computing equipment and
the big computer networks and super computers.
Surely, there is still time for such developments, but the question
remains who does set such trents and can companies like Microsoft
influence or stop such trents, because Microsoft is not small and
should have considerable power, so it could be asked if Microsoft must
adapt, or could Microsoft force others to adapt to whatever they create.
Besides, why do we or companies have to follow and copy whatever
someone makes before us?
This discussion of user interfaces (Office 2003 vs 2007 design for
example) is pointless in my opinion.
I personally don't have problems with the idea of changing the design
of a program.
But we do we have to be forced to a design. Let's take the Office 2007
design for an example.
I have read several reports and posts in various forums (sighted
users) where people were not happy with the new design not because
they had to learn new things, but because they did not have a choice
in the matter meaning that everyone who got the new Office for
whatever reason had to use the new design.
But what I never got in this talk was, why Microsoft did not offer two
designs?
Look at Windows Media Player or Winamp. Both programs have skins which
you can download or create yourself to alter and customice the
interface of your program. But why don't more programs have the option
for skins (surely it can't be because they want to make money, because
you could theoretically sell anything you develop).
So, what is the problem with the talks of designs and user feedback
companies are getting and seemingly ignore here and there sometimes?
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
[email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the
list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
