I don't know about that. I have pretty heavy accent and most voice recognition software I tried to use didn't work so well. People speak differently, but we all 'touch' the same way. So why would voice recognition phase over touch.
Seems like a step forward into lazier future. Wall-e anyone?!
No it won't... touch is useful for some things, voice will be useful for other things - one isn't a direct replacement for the other. Anyone remember the Bladerunning voice activated image enhancement scene? What I remember is that it took about 5x longer to zoom in than it should have... touch is a GREAT way to zoom - voice however is good for other things "Call home" for instance.
shows how out of touch the big guys are (pun intended) Voice is but one dimension of interaction. We can do way way better than that. Way better... This statement is so stupid that i think the dude is just casting red herrings
I find that hard to believe, what if ur in a loud area (for example a bus full of people shouting at their phones) also we invented sms after the ability to talk over the phone, i can type an sms way faster on a touch screen than a phone can translate comands or ring someone up. Voice comands just aren't efficient
also read in CPU magazine that ibm estimates within 5 years our smartphone will be able to tell we're sick before our first sneeze and will be able to decipher the meaning of a dog's bark lol...a la voice recog perhaps
using your hands to control a device will never be obsolete. as others above have said, sometimes you want to use the phone quietly, it would be hard to use in a noisy place, etc. Can you imagine in a large office block, all these people yapping at their computer all day? Intel you dumbasses. The click of a mouse or touch of a button is also a lot faster than speaking a phrase, not to mention the time taken in setting the voice recognition thing up so it understands you. I just hope the people that write the software for this aren't the same people who designed windows 8.
[citation][nom]clintwilks[/nom]also read in CPU magazine that ibm estimates within 5 years our smartphone will be able to tell we're sick before our first sneeze and will be able to decipher the meaning of a dog's bark lol...a la voice recog perhaps[/citation]
You mean some people don't understand dogs now, interesting.
He's obviously saying that because it's something they're working on. We have evolved different means of input, for a variety of reasons, and efficiency of correctly transmitting the required data is one of them. A variety of computer inputs will usually be better depending on the task and the person.
I can't agree. As striated by others you can't go without physical Input no matter what. You can all be using voice commands @ a Starbucks lol. Also say the program drivers for voice goes bad, you would need a physical medium to input information. It sounds as if intel is scared about how things are going with mobile these days and that they are behind. By trying To discount what we have now. I dunno it that's true but it follows human behaviour to minimize other things to make what you are doing sounds better. I dunno, what do you guys think?
Can't beat the keyboard + mouse for general productivity. Touch, voice, 3d -- all of them have a certain, high-tech, wow-factor appeal, but except in limited circumstances, they all have massive practical flaws. I can sorta see where Intel is coming from: if you're just talking about the typical use-case of the average tablet owner, then yeah, maybe voice can be just as efficient as touch -- unless the user is in public or in otherwise loud surroundings, but then that's sorta the point: the exceptions can't be ignored when you're talking about usability.
Which is why we'll probably still be happily click-clacking away on our futuristic keyboards 100 years from now.