- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Arfken: "Re: Additional Functionality in NaturallySpeaking"
- Previous message: Oleg Kiselev: "Re: Additional Functionality in NaturallySpeaking"
- Maybe in reply to: Maxine McCarthy: "Additional Functionality in NaturallySpeaking"
- Next in thread: Alan Arfken: "Re: Additional Functionality in NaturallySpeaking"
Microsoft Word users experienced when we were forced to relearn the way
we used the product when it was switched to the Windows environment. At
bottom I still feel that all the 'improvements' haven't improved on what
I grew up with. Microsoft argues that its product development is a
response to user demand but they didn't hear mine and I'm not sure I'd
like to know the users they responded to.
Chris.
-----------------
Rose wrote:
>
> Actually, I've been making my own voice macros for years and haven't
> found it tedious, have found it interesting. With Nat, even Deluxe
> which has more functions than lessor versions of Nat, there either are
> not as many functions (commands) or I can't find them - the lack of
> groups is driving me nuts, the DDE capability is limited (and maybe
> there is a better way to do what I did with Dragon's DDE capability but
> I can't find it). Having said all that, I did try ViaVoice, trained it
> for twice as long as I had Nat (40 hours) before I ran a time/accuracy
> test - and, as I've reported to the group - both the speed and the
> accuracy that I was able to obtain with it were far less than what I do
> with Nat. Saying "far less" is putting it very mildly.
> Rose
>
