Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

jackschaedler.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#11

Post by taneq »

defgeneric wrote: post #9
snowwrestler wrote: post #4

This a cool exploration of technology, and I don't want to take away from that. > The program was efficient enough to run in real-time on a IBM System/360 computer, and robust enough to properly identify 90 percent of the symbols drawn by first-time users. I just want to point out that 90% accuracy is, from a user's point of view, awful handwriting recognition performance. It means you will be correcting on average a…

> This demo is constrained to only using one stroke per letter, but systems that permit multiple strokes still get into trouble when the strokes don't match what they are expecting--for example if you draw an X using 4 individual strokes outward from a central point. Arguably, an X drawn this way should NOT be recognized as an X--that's not how an X is spelled. If the task is communicating with the computer, then rec…

I've seen people write letters in all manner of unexpected ways. If the resultant marks on the paper look enough like the intended letter, then it's readable by a human, and if it's readable by a human, it should be readable by a machine.

Not that I don't think "meet me halfway" type approaches (like the Graffiti system) aren't worth using, but in this case we're talking about recognizing writing (the artifact), not writing (the verb).

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#12

Post by rayiner »

Handwriting recognition is a great example of technology whose development seems to have plateaued before it became "good enough." Stroke-based recognition has been in development for half a century now, but my iPad Pro still makes errors at least a couple of times per line, which is enough to make it pretty much useless unless you're writing only for your own later consumption. That and voice recognition. It's shocking how bad Android and iOS still are at that, even after decades of work on voice recognition technology.

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#13

Post by taneq »

blattimwind wrote: post #2

The linked demo is by far the most impressive thing I've seen all week. I wish a certain Microsoft chart editor was as easy and unfinicky to use as this demo from 1966 (52 years ago), and that's still one of the better editors out there.

Comparing this with the Graffiti system on my old (2000-ish) Palm Pilot, this is somewhat more reliable even on a first attempt than that was after I'd made a concerted effort to learn it. Very cool!

Edit: I think where the Afterword says "inputting text with a stylus is likely slower than touch typing", they're forgetting that we still don't have a really acceptable way of inputting text on mobile devices. Swype and its ilk are close, but still hamfisted at times.

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#14

Post by 1787 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #10
defgeneric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This demo is constrained to only using one stroke per letter, but systems that permit multiple strokes still get into trouble when the strokes don't match what they are expecting--for example if you draw an X using 4 individual strokes outward from a central point. Arguably, an X drawn this way should NOT be recognized as an X--that's not how an X is spelled. If the task is communicating with the computer, then rec…

The human convention of written language it to interpret the symbols after they have been completed, not during the act of writing them. A computer that interprets the behavior of writing, rather than the final symbols, is going to violate user expectations at some point. Why? Because people do not always write as linearly as you might expect, especially when writing fast. They might drop or mis-write letters or word…

"human convention of written language" is a bit much. Stroke order is almost as important as what the actual strokes are in the definition of a Chinese character, for example. Of course unless you literally watch someone write you observe the characters after they're written, but the most predictive latent mental representation of a character does include an order component. I know this because I made the mistake of memorizing many characters almost like bitmaps and have had to go back and learn how to reliably write/read hand written characters.

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#16

Post by taeric »

1787 wrote: post #14
snowwrestler wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human convention of written language it to interpret the symbols after they have been completed, not during the act of writing them. A computer that interprets the behavior of writing, rather than the final symbols, is going to violate user expectations at some point. Why? Because people do not always write as linearly as you might expect, especially when writing fast. They might drop or mis-write letters or word…

"human convention of written language" is a bit much. Stroke order is almost as important as what the actual strokes are in the definition of a Chinese character, for example. Of course unless you literally watch someone write you observe the characters after they're written, but the most predictive latent mental representation of a character does include an order component. I know this because I made the mistake of…

Even learning English the stroke order can help considerably. Mostly it helps in just learning to write legibly, but that really is just a fancy way of saying it increases the accuracy of recognition. :)

I completely concede that it is possible to get the same results with other stroke orderings. However, there is a reason when teaching children how to write, we often get fairly prescriptive with stroke ordering, as well.

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#17

Post by taeric »

snowwrestler wrote: post #10
defgeneric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This demo is constrained to only using one stroke per letter, but systems that permit multiple strokes still get into trouble when the strokes don't match what they are expecting--for example if you draw an X using 4 individual strokes outward from a central point. Arguably, an X drawn this way should NOT be recognized as an X--that's not how an X is spelled. If the task is communicating with the computer, then rec…

The human convention of written language it to interpret the symbols after they have been completed, not during the act of writing them. A computer that interprets the behavior of writing, rather than the final symbols, is going to violate user expectations at some point. Why? Because people do not always write as linearly as you might expect, especially when writing fast. They might drop or mis-write letters or word…

Going back and fixing up is almost never as legible as getting it right the first time. Even for human readers.

If you truly want to write fast, you go with a shorthand system. I don't know many folks that have tried reading other's shorthands. It probably isn't as tough as you'd imagine, but most of those systems are more demanding on stroke order, not less. If only because the speed is gained by being very prescriptive.

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#18

Post by snowwrestler »

1787 wrote: post #14
snowwrestler wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human convention of written language it to interpret the symbols after they have been completed, not during the act of writing them. A computer that interprets the behavior of writing, rather than the final symbols, is going to violate user expectations at some point. Why? Because people do not always write as linearly as you might expect, especially when writing fast. They might drop or mis-write letters or word…

"human convention of written language" is a bit much. Stroke order is almost as important as what the actual strokes are in the definition of a Chinese character, for example. Of course unless you literally watch someone write you observe the characters after they're written, but the most predictive latent mental representation of a character does include an order component. I know this because I made the mistake of…

I don't know what to say other than that the entire purpose of written language is to carry information between people who aren't in a position to directly observe each other writing. (If they were, they could just talk and would not need to write.)

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#19

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

taneq wrote: post #11
defgeneric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This demo is constrained to only using one stroke per letter, but systems that permit multiple strokes still get into trouble when the strokes don't match what they are expecting--for example if you draw an X using 4 individual strokes outward from a central point. Arguably, an X drawn this way should NOT be recognized as an X--that's not how an X is spelled. If the task is communicating with the computer, then rec…

I've seen people write letters in all manner of unexpected ways. If the resultant marks on the paper look enough like the intended letter, then it's readable by a human, and if it's readable by a human, it should be readable by a machine. Not that I don't think "meet me halfway" type approaches (like the Graffiti system) aren't worth using, but in this case we're talking about recognizing writing (the artifact), not…

Interesting discussion, thank you.

I am reminded of the Graffiti handwriting notation used by Palm OS. That was single stroke, and devices came with a card depicting all the characters.

I was never able to become fluent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti_(Palm_OS)

Re: Back to the Future of Handwriting Recognition

#20

Post by snowwrestler »

DEADBEEFC0FFEE wrote: post #19
taneq wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen people write letters in all manner of unexpected ways. If the resultant marks on the paper look enough like the intended letter, then it's readable by a human, and if it's readable by a human, it should be readable by a machine. Not that I don't think "meet me halfway" type approaches (like the Graffiti system) aren't worth using, but in this case we're talking about recognizing writing (the artifact), not…

Interesting discussion, thank you. I am reminded of the Graffiti handwriting notation used by Palm OS. That was single stroke, and devices came with a card depicting all the characters. I was never able to become fluent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti_(Palm_OS)

Your comment illustrates why Palm Pilots found market success with handwriting recognition (as far as I know, the only product that ever did so).

The trick was that they treated "Graffiti" as a new alphabet that users had to learn. Thus, when the recognition engine failed, many users blamed themselves (i.e. their Graffiti fluency) rather than the product.

In contrast, when products that promised to recognize natural handwriting had a recognition failure, the users tended to blame the products.

It's a good lesson for product development--user satisfaction will depend in part on user expectations.

Post reply on HN