I love the low vision pitch as there are a dearth of low vision resources particularly those hit with age related macular degeneration. I wonder if they are any censored items in the backend that may limit functionality -- Seeing AI won't be seeing any sex toys...
Seeing AI for iOS
121–130 of 139 posts
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#122The text recognition from documents is amazingly primitive. It doesn't use any type of spell checking to make a best guess at what a word is. It's straight text recognition. On the other hand the "short text" feature works amazingly well to read text is sees from the camera. It's fast and accurate when reading text even at some non optimal angles. How do you get it to try to recognize items that the camera sees? Edit…
Why on earth would you want spell check on text-to-speech for the blind? Spell check is for people writing messages, not for people reading messages.
This is a terrible idea.
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#123Wow. You can imagine a near future where this, a small wearable camera and an earphone could really make a big difference to a persons daily life. Screw Siri, thats a real AI assistant :)
Apparently there is some research and development taking place into a cane that has a sonar or some similar sensor embedded into its tip, and transmits haptic feedback to the user via the handle.
These assistive technologies are fantastic, but I wonder whether a vision-impaired person who has adapted to life before they were available would be weary about adopting them, on the basis that if it breaks or becomes unavailable that they would have maybe lost the skills and sharpness of other senses to compensate?
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that Google has not been focusing on accessibility at first, but what is missing from the last version of Android compared to iOS ?
At this stage it's a long list of small details rather than any specific feature. Apple place an extremely high value on UI consistency, which is disproportionately important for visually impaired users. Accessibility is an intrinsic part of their design culture, rather than something they retrofit on later. Subtle things like menu items being in a logical order make a really big difference when you rely on a screenr…
> because it's a much easier development target.
Lol
No it is not
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#125The text recognition from documents is amazingly primitive. It doesn't use any type of spell checking to make a best guess at what a word is. It's straight text recognition. On the other hand the "short text" feature works amazingly well to read text is sees from the camera. It's fast and accurate when reading text even at some non optimal angles. How do you get it to try to recognize items that the camera sees? Edit…
Why on earth would you want spell check on text-to-speech for the blind? Spell check is for people writing messages, not for people reading messages. This is a terrible idea.
I'm not talking about the feature that reads text aloud. I'm referring to the OCR "document" feature that makes transcription errors that could easily be fixed if it had any level of text correction.
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why on earth would you want spell check on text-to-speech for the blind? Spell check is for people writing messages, not for people reading messages. This is a terrible idea.
I'm not talking about the feature that reads text aloud. I'm referring to the OCR "document" feature that makes transcription errors that could easily be fixed if it had any level of text correction.
regardless, text correction is a tool for the writer, not a tool for the reader. In general, text-correction does one of two things, it makes an error better, or it makes an error worse, unless you can guarantee that it only does the first thing, you have no idea what the total value of the operation will be.
Additionally, presumably its capacity to make an error better is not better than a human's capacity to make that error better. Even over very small timescales, tens of seconds, a computer confronted with a typo will never outperform a human confronted with the same typo.
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not talking about the feature that reads text aloud. I'm referring to the OCR "document" feature that makes transcription errors that could easily be fixed if it had any level of text correction.
regardless, text correction is a tool for the writer, not a tool for the reader. In general, text-correction does one of two things, it makes an error better, or it makes an error worse, unless you can guarantee that it only does the first thing, you have no idea what the total value of the operation will be. Additionally, presumably its capacity to make an error better is not better than a human's capacity to make t…
A simple text correction could tell the difference between the word "rnethod" and "method" and know one is more likely an error in ocr.
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
regardless, text correction is a tool for the writer, not a tool for the reader. In general, text-correction does one of two things, it makes an error better, or it makes an error worse, unless you can guarantee that it only does the first thing, you have no idea what the total value of the operation will be. Additionally, presumably its capacity to make an error better is not better than a human's capacity to make t…
A simple text correction could tell the difference between the word "rnethod" and "method" and know one is more likely an error in ocr.
what if it were OCR applied to this conversation?
Re: Seeing AI for iOS
#129Not available in the Australian store. Ah, I forgot my entire country doesn't exist.
Funny that you are only upset that it is not in your country.