I argue against using voice to communicate with computers because speaking requires significant physical energy and cognitive effort. Recent research supports my intuition that speech recognition might hinder thought processes during task execution.
I always felt using voice to communicate with computers was a bad idea. In my case, it’s more because speaking takes up a lot of energy. But looks like it takes up a lot of thought power as well. Maybe speech recognition is not such a good idea.
I shared a link questioning the practicality of notebook computers. This brief 2002 post points to an article suggesting that portable PCs might not be the revolutionary "good idea" everyone assumed at the time.
I track Google's early 2001 developments in voice search technology, noting their move into speech recognition. This vintage update reflects the beginning of search interfaces evolving beyond simple text input on a keyboard.
I found [V]Host, an interesting text-to-speech web application that lets you embed Flash characters on your site to read text aloud. It offers a unique way to add interactive audio content using animated avatars.
I originally expected voice input to dominate, but I'm finding handwriting on devices like the IBM Thinkpad and Sony VAIO desktop more promising. Writing directly on screens offers a compelling alternative to keyboard or speech.
I highlight research showing the California power crisis was not caused by computers or distributed projects like Seti@home. These findings debunk the myth that high-tech energy demands were responsible for the state's blackouts.