Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very dismissive and short-sighted comment. The ambition here seems to go beyond the current implementation, to have a "magic" chat view that tracks voices and transcribes them in differing colors automatically and with minimal setup. I laud the effort and encourage the team to play this out for the sake of the hearing impaired. I hope that in the next decade deaf people--and their interlocutors--won't have to hobbl…
> The ambition here seems to go beyond the current implementation, to have a "magic" chat view that tracks voices and transcribes them in differing colors automatically and with minimal setup. To put it another way: real-time subtitles. Imagine having something like this in Google Glass. As a person with profound hearing loss, that blows me away. This technology could easily be repurposed for subtitling videos.
An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
31–39 of 39 posts
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#32So does it go up to a server to transcribe the audio? Is that why it costs $360 a year?
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's undeniably dismissive. Yes, the first sentence is a question, but "is it anything more than X?" is a rhetorical flourish meant to imply that the product is trivially replicated. The next sentence goes on to say that he's not impressed. As pg put it: Maybe you think you're making some sort of important point here. Or maybe you realize your comment is inane and you think it's witty. But (perhaps without realizing…
I don't think it is, and I think the fact the person begins with a question asking if their assessment of the technology is correct is integral to that point. As a real life example, I was leaning towards the original poster's interpretation of the product. The reply it spurred helped me see the product in a different light, and I think it has more merit than I originally did, even if I'm not sure the technologies in…
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also why most businesses won't be able to use it.
Businesses can already communicate with a deaf person the same way using humans instead of servers, it's called VPS.
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#35You mean a text message?
I thought the same thing - until I read this: "It works by catching conversations from the voices of different individuals and assigning them a color bubble so the deaf person knows who said what. It works with a distributed microphone system on all the devices using the app so that it can distinguish each person from another." That's pretty damn amazing IMHO.
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#36The main problem with general purpose real-time voice recognition is that current hardware is simply way too underpowered to accomplish the task. For instance, running the Dragon 11 SDK on an Intel Atom Z3770 has it about up to a minute behind transcribing the conversation! So I fear Transcene's approach is using the inferior Google Speech API which plainly put, sucks donkey balls, and is no way comparable to the latest Dragon engine. Apple uses the Dragon engine to implement Siri.
There's also the social burden of needing speakers to install an app on their smartphones and also actually have a smartphone in the first place. Will this be a free "remote mic" app such as Dragon 13 provides or does Transcene expect speakers to pony up the monthly cost as well?
I too think businesses and institutions will not allow this because they need overpriced ADA compliant solutions due to regulations. An example would be Interact-AS which is $800 and is essentially a fancy overlay for the Dragon engine (or Microsoft Speech in the low-end $150 version). Dragon itself only costs a one-time $99 to $199!
I'm also skeptical there's a viable business model in this. The vast majority of the deaf are on fixed incomes and not employed, so what is a relatively expensive $30 a month for app access buying them exactly? It better be a superior remote client to server transcriptioning experience! What's to stop Dragon from enabling multiple "remote mic" apps to work all at once with the mothership PC in their next version, etc.? And if not a client server model, what are the minimum hardware specifications to get "one second" transcriptions? A $599 smartphone is a ridiculous and overpriced luxury for the deaf.
As for Google Glass, it is a non-starter. No one wants to look like an idiot constantly staring off into their peripheral vision to read text instead of looking at whoever is speaking -- which is why Google Glass has been such a massive failure. What is truly needed is spatial aware, augmented reality where the transcriptions are placed over who is speaking via beaming text onto normal glasses or directly onto the retina. This technology already exists in various forms; it is just a matter of a real world implemention into a "killer app". Transcene, are you paying attention?
Nonetheless, this is a very important step forward that no one else is really doing, so I'm in for $250... and holding my breath.
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is, and I think the fact the person begins with a question asking if their assessment of the technology is correct is integral to that point. As a real life example, I was leaning towards the original poster's interpretation of the product. The reply it spurred helped me see the product in a different light, and I think it has more merit than I originally did, even if I'm not sure the technologies in…
GP here; you've used much better words to mirror my opinion. This being on Hacker News, my initial thought was that it would be an amazing technical display. Frankly, it isn't, but the discussion here has helped me realize that the reason we care about it is because it's an incredibly useful application of existing tech. That's still great—there's a ton of value outside of technical wizardry—but it just wasn't immedi…
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#38Initially I was impressed, but now I worry about the logistic issues in regards to the fine details. The main problem with general purpose real-time voice recognition is that current hardware is simply way too underpowered to accomplish the task. For instance, running the Dragon 11 SDK on an Intel Atom Z3770 has it about up to a minute behind transcribing the conversation! So I fear Transcene's approach is using the…
Keep it up guys at transcense
Re: An App That Lets You Converse with the Deaf, No Sign Language Necessary
#39Initially I was impressed, but now I worry about the logistic issues in regards to the fine details. The main problem with general purpose real-time voice recognition is that current hardware is simply way too underpowered to accomplish the task. For instance, running the Dragon 11 SDK on an Intel Atom Z3770 has it about up to a minute behind transcribing the conversation! So I fear Transcene's approach is using the…