Advantages:

For the physically impaired using the above keyboard.
For those using other languages, who use the English QWERTY keyboard, where language support by voice may take a long time to come or never if it is a minor language.
other things ihave not thought of yet!

Great job on gnome-voice-conrol! I’ve used versions 0.2 and 0.3, and I thought I’d share my experiences in the hope that it might further development a little and help anyone who’s encountered the same (minor) problems that I had to get it up and running.

Regarding installation:

the 0.2 .deb package on the ubuntu repos installed without a problem. It took me a minute or two to realise it was a panel applet but apart from that it was all good (changing the package description to specify “panel” might be a useful addition though?).

with compiling 0.3 from source, I had a little trouble finding some of the listed dependencies and found some of the instructions vague, but I think that was due to my level of experience as opposed to your instructions! I got it installed without too much trouble anyway so I’m obviously learning.

Regarding initial usage:

0.2; Again, because I installed the software from the repos, I had no instructions or any idea how to use it. A quick google revealed the youtube screencast and that let me know what commands were supposed to work. I wasted some time repeating “run browser” in different tones/speeds of voice before doing some more searching and discovering the program opens epiphany by default which I dont have installed (perhaps you could implement a check and generate an error notification if expected software is not available?). Anyway, after I got firefox opening I set about trying to get the other commands recognised…

I had most success using the following approach:

1. Speaking clearly, and *slightly* exagerating my pronuciation, eg with the word “next” emphasise like this – nnex-T. Or with “file” emphasise the “f” and “l” sounds like this – ffy-le.
2. Not pausing between words if both words are part of the same command.
3. Speaking at my normal speed/slightly faster, avoiding slowing down or “dumbing down” my voice.
4. Trying not to sound frustrated when repeating commands – finding a neutral tone that works and repeating it consistently gives the best results (easier said than done sometimes).

Comparing 0.2 and 0.3:

While I appreciated the additional commands added to 0.3 I found it to be much more “paranoid” than 0.2. What I mean by this is, 0.2 generally just sat dormant and only reacted when it recognised a command. It mostly ignored background noise and normal speech and if it didnt understand me it ignored me. However, 0.3 is reacting much more to background sounds and best-guessing a command, any command. Just typing or coughing or moving your chair usually issues a command of some sort. Making random, silly noises will issue valid commands with 0.3 as well.

Regarding command list:

You might consider the following additional commands ifthey haven’t already been implemented;

shutdown computer
browse files
run messenger
run music player

That’s about all I can think of right now, except to say i’ll be keeping a close eye on this project and promoting it where I can. Keep up the good work!

Have you considered sphinx4? I know that it is said to be slow and speed is key, but inaccuracy is what makes people give up, so it would make sense to use the latest software.

Is there a list of possible commands that the user can see to help them use the program to the fullest? I have the “close window” command working almost without flaw, but I don’t know what other options I have. I also have no idea how to type. I have been trying “type hello” and nothing happens. Maybe I am doing the wrong thing.

Despite the criticisms, this is a great program and is the only program of it’s kind that I have been able to install. It is really easy to use and that is very important to me and new computer users.

Thanks,
Lexen

It looks like PocketSphinx may actually have failed to run completely, which isn’t surprising since the decoding scripts are sometimes broken.

You should definitely see about 20% less runtime and memory consumption, but not something as dramatic as above

Honestly, do you think these results are acceptable? I mean, did you expect such close results (2% difference is nothing) with such different time and memory consumption?

Great job, by the way!!