Live data from Hacker News

Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

squirt.io

111–120 of 213 posts

Re: Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

#111
post #45

What I noticed using this to read a couple Ars Technica articles was it worked really well for short words. But, if a longer complicated word appeared, at say 600 wpm, I would miss it. It seems like an adaptive algorithm based on word length would improve the speed even more allowing it to go faster on short common words and slow down on longer unusual words. Also, there is bug that sometimes causes two words to appe…

Hey timtadh! Spritz Inc's blog (http://www.spritzinc.com/blog/) has some interesting things to say about word recognition, primarily that it's related to a word's unique shape more than length. Words that are less than 4 characters long are actually harder to recognize due to their having more visual analogues than longer words, and words over 7 characters are start looking "long" more than any other shape characteristic. I've got some ideas about how to incorporate this into my app without doing a bunch of image processing, so, until then, keep your eyes peeled ;) Thanks for the feedback!

Re: Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

#112
post #62

I feel like it ruins the cadence, in my head anything I read with this sounds like it's coming from a robot.

You're quite correct that cadence is diminished, though that can be mitigated by adding a delay to each word based on its length.

There is, in fact, a delay based on word characteristics, but it's not just length that matters, it's the uniqueness of a word's shape. Spritz has a nice blog post on the topic: http://www.spritzinc.com/blog/.

Re: Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

#113
post #67

I'd really like to see this model with an adaptive speed. Same speed for all the words isn't always the best. Maybe using an n-gram model to predict how probable the next word is, could pass high probability phrases at a faster rate, while slowing down for "harder" words

There's a good Google Books dataset for doing exactly that, and you can doing something in Hive to get you the lowest-entropy n-grams (with something like https://github.com/lsb/text-entropy/blob/master/passphrase-s... ), and then you can the low-entropy n-grams into a Bloom filter (like http://www.leebutterman.com/passphrase-safety/how-it-works.h... ) and your enormous corpus gets fitted into a few dozen megs of mem…

Might also help to get feedback from the user and to know what n-grams the user has already encountered in their life.

Re: Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

#115
post #50
post #45

What I noticed using this to read a couple Ars Technica articles was it worked really well for short words. But, if a longer complicated word appeared, at say 600 wpm, I would miss it. It seems like an adaptive algorithm based on word length would improve the speed even more allowing it to go faster on short common words and slow down on longer unusual words. Also, there is bug that sometimes causes two words to appe…

Slow down on long words would be very helpful, I just tried it with some german news text[1] at 600wpm: Worked great except for words that occured like Kinderbetreuungsmöglichkeiten US-Geheimdienstausschusses Bundestags-Innenausschuss Bundeswirtschaftsminister Bundesarbeitsministeriums [1] http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/nachrichten.353.de.html

LOL. This is on the todo list :) Thanks for the feedback!

Re: Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

#117

HN always likes the faster is better, I am a genius absorbing this much information quicker than you. Its been proven over and over that comprehension is way more important than speed of consumption. You guys fool yourselves into believing you can comprehend while reading at breakneck speeds, its way more fun & time saving to be able to imagine, driftaway in thought and understand what you are reading.

Spritz is supposed to improve comprehension too. That's how it was pitched in the original article I read.

Re: Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

#119
post #16
post #12

I've never thought much about my reading speed before, but after trying this and finding the deafault setting a bit slow, I decided to compare my natural reading speed. I was able to read the article I chose in about 85% of the time of the default 400WPM of the bookmarklet (I read the article first with a timer, and then reread with the bookmarklet), which would put me at 470WPM. With Squirt, I was only able to get u…

> I wonder if people really read one word at a time They don't. I always thought the whole point of speed reading was to ingest multiple words simultaneously. These speed reading tools should be extended so that they can show multiple words at once rather than one word at a time. A really ambitious improvement would be to automatically recognize very common phrases and constructions and to make an effort to always sh…

For me it depends on the content and my mood. With my app [0] I read at about 5-600wpm, whether it's 1, 2 or 3 words at a time. If I'm having trouble with a particular article, changing the number of words often fixes it. Though of course, for some content, I need to drop the WPM (esp when there's a lot of technical and/or unfamiliar terms).

[0]https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hughesoft....

Re: Squirt.io – Readability Meets Spritz Speed Reading

#120

HN always likes the faster is better, I am a genius absorbing this much information quicker than you. Its been proven over and over that comprehension is way more important than speed of consumption. You guys fool yourselves into believing you can comprehend while reading at breakneck speeds, its way more fun & time saving to be able to imagine, driftaway in thought and understand what you are reading.

Honestly I don't have time to read, so I'm going to use this heavily. Long as I get the gist. If I miss a few things, I'll go back and quickly scan those few things I missed. I can finish like 10 articles on my commute no problem with this, versus just a few.
Post reply on HN