- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Thomas M J Dolan: "ARCHIVE"
- Previous message: Dr. Sarah M. Young: "Re: SPAM"
- Maybe in reply to: Simon Weitzman: "Re: Voice error name"
- Next in thread: Nancy Gray: "Re: [VRUG] Nat 3.01 report"
This will clearly identify this special form of errata associated with voice
recognition just as typo is associated with typing.
-----Original Message-----
From: jjohnst@@tezcat.com [SMTP:jjohnst@tezcat.com]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 4:43 PM
To: voice-users@@voicerecognition.com
Subject: Re: Voice error name
From: jjohnst@@tezcat.com (gNAt)
Sender: voice-users@@voicerecognition.com
To: voice-users@@voicerecognition.com (voice-users)
>>
>>Since the problem would be with recognition, why not call them a
>>"recognition-o". This could be shortened to a "rec-o". And if this were
>>misrecognized it might come out something like "wreck-o". This would be
>>highly appropriate as it could wreck your whole document.
>>
I agree that the problem is recognition, not your speech at least not
usually. Errata, as someone suggested, seems a bit formal. And
recognition-o is a bit too long. I personally like Drag-o :-) (however
recognizing some people are using different products maybe this wouldn't
be so good, also there are the fine people at Dragon to think about here.
:-)) So I like rec-o or better wreck-o. So here's my second or is it
third.
>>Steve Hasselberg
--gNAt
"Reality is a rerun with a lot of commercials."
Jane's Law no. 76
- Next message: Thomas M J Dolan: "ARCHIVE"
- Previous message: Dr. Sarah M. Young: "Re: SPAM"
- Maybe in reply to: Simon Weitzman: "Re: Voice error name"
- Next in thread: Nancy Gray: "Re: [VRUG] Nat 3.01 report"
 |  |