60 ms·

How about a high-bandwidth vocal signal language in place of natural language? Here is an example: https://youtu.be/sG3PWet8fDk?t=4545 https://youtu.be/sG3PWet8

How about a high-bandwidth vocal signal language in place of natural language? Here is an example: https://youtu.be/sG3PWet8fDk?t=4545 https://youtu.be/sG3PWet8fDk?t=4545

baddox 6y ago
I feel like you'd lose most of the advantage of a voice interface if you had to learn a new (and presumably difficult) high-bandwidth vocal signal language. It might still be useful for some niche scenarios where it's very important to have your hands free or to operate over an audio channel, but the real notable advantage of a voice interface is that most humans already use speech as their primary method of communication with other humans.
- AriaMinaei 6y ago
  The learning curve would certainly be a disadvantage. But just like learning to play an instrument, the payoff could be worth it.
floatrock 6y ago
I've heard a trick that acrobatic flight squads like the Blue Angels use when coming into really tight formations is each pilot hums at a specific frequency/tone. By varying their pitch up or down, they can signal to the other pilots what they're about to do, kinda like an audio turn signal. And because each pilot is humming at a different frequency, everyone in the squad can be communicating at the same time -- in the same way you can pick out different instruments in a song, our ears can separate different simultaneous humming at different frequencies. Not sure this is what the author meant in the first section when he wrote: > I suspect you can push the user into a conversational skeuomorphism if you think that’s best, and the user will play along, but it’s no more right than another metaphor. It’s a question of quality of interaction, not ease or familiarity. ...but it's an interesting example of non-conversational multiplexed voice communication.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I think what he's saying is that you can push people towards "natural" conversation but if it doesn't really work well, people will get frustrated. Which is sort of the problem with voice assistants today for the most part. You really do have to get the right wizard incantations a lot of the time.
ianbicking 6y ago
I haven't seen that video before, I'm excited to watch it in its entirety. I've always felt a bit disappointed in myself that I haven't created the kind of optimized experience that Engelbart put forward – like maybe I'm not just being inefficient, but leaving room to overengage with my own distraction. OTOH, there are limits to our own ability to be engaged and efficient. I am a good typist, which means I can write faster than my own thoughts... do I need to type faster? I could switch to Dvorak, but I don't think that's the limiting factor. Some of the user interfaces Engelbart advocated for feel like the Dvorak of interfaces, optimizing for something that is already past human ability. Looking at some of the interfaces in the Mother Of All Demos, it feels like they would require years of living in the tool to make it worth it, to make it natural and comprehensible and focusing instead of distracting. (I haven't done it, so I might be wrong!) A high-bandwidth vocal signal feels similar, optimizing past our mental speed, and single-system-focused. At least that's my take on it.
- AriaMinaei 6y ago
  > like maybe I'm not just being inefficient, but leaving room to overengage with my own distraction I feel that way when I'm writing text and code. But when doing visual design, or playing with a demoscene setup, I tend to feel limited by the number of variables I can simultaneously control. I have tried using MIDI nobs and sliders, but the bottleneck is how many fingers I have, rather than the number of input devices in front of me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

How about a high-bandwidth vocal signal language in place of natural language? Here is an example: https://youtu.be/sG3PWet8fDk?t=4545 https://youtu.be/sG3PWet8fDk?t=4545

baddox 6y ago

I feel like you'd lose most of the advantage of a voice interface if you had to learn a new (and presumably difficult) high-bandwidth vocal signal language. It might still be useful for some niche scenarios where it's very important to have your hands free or to operate over an audio channel, but the real notable advantage of a voice interface is that most humans already use speech as their primary method of communication with other humans.

AriaMinaei 6y ago
The learning curve would certainly be a disadvantage. But just like learning to play an instrument, the payoff could be worth it.

floatrock 6y ago

I've heard a trick that acrobatic flight squads like the Blue Angels use when coming into really tight formations is each pilot hums at a specific frequency/tone. By varying their pitch up or down, they can signal to the other pilots what they're about to do, kinda like an audio turn signal. And because each pilot is humming at a different frequency, everyone in the squad can be communicating at the same time -- in the same way you can pick out different instruments in a song, our ears can separate different simultaneous humming at different frequencies. Not sure this is what the author meant in the first section when he wrote: > I suspect you can push the user into a conversational skeuomorphism if you think that’s best, and the user will play along, but it’s no more right than another metaphor. It’s a question of quality of interaction, not ease or familiarity. ...but it's an interesting example of non-conversational multiplexed voice communication.

ghaff 6y ago
I think what he's saying is that you can push people towards "natural" conversation but if it doesn't really work well, people will get frustrated. Which is sort of the problem with voice assistants today for the most part. You really do have to get the right wizard incantations a lot of the time.

ianbicking 6y ago

I haven't seen that video before, I'm excited to watch it in its entirety. I've always felt a bit disappointed in myself that I haven't created the kind of optimized experience that Engelbart put forward – like maybe I'm not just being inefficient, but leaving room to overengage with my own distraction. OTOH, there are limits to our own ability to be engaged and efficient. I am a good typist, which means I can write faster than my own thoughts... do I need to type faster? I could switch to Dvorak, but I don't think that's the limiting factor. Some of the user interfaces Engelbart advocated for feel like the Dvorak of interfaces, optimizing for something that is already past human ability. Looking at some of the interfaces in the Mother Of All Demos, it feels like they would require years of living in the tool to make it worth it, to make it natural and comprehensible and focusing instead of distracting. (I haven't done it, so I might be wrong!) A high-bandwidth vocal signal feels similar, optimizing past our mental speed, and single-system-focused. At least that's my take on it.

AriaMinaei 6y ago
> like maybe I'm not just being inefficient, but leaving room to overengage with my own distraction I feel that way when I'm writing text and code. But when doing visual design, or playing with a demoscene setup, I tend to feel limited by the number of variables I can simultaneously control. I have tried using MIDI nobs and sliders, but the bottleneck is how many fingers I have, rather than the number of input devices in front of me.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]