Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

John Conti

dblp:12/1658 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1982
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Interaction techniques and input · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Speech recognition and synthesis · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Interaction techniques and input › text entry › speech-based text entry
listening typewriter
0.011982
Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter · CHI 1982
Interaction techniques and input › text entry
speech-based text entry
0.011982
Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter · CHI 1982
Interaction techniques and input
text entry
0.011982
Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter · CHI 1982

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

simulated listening typewriter experiment · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1982 Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter
abstract
Speech recognition is not yet advanced enough to provide people with a reliable listening typewriter with which they could compose documents. The aim of this experiment was to determine if an imperfect listening typewriter would be useful for highly experienced dictators. Participants dictated either in isolated words or in continuous speech, and used a simulated listening typewriter which recognized a limited vocabulary as well as one which recognized an unlimited one. Results suggest that reducing the rate at which people dictate, either through limitations in vocabulary size or through speaking in isolated words, led to reductions in people's performance. For these first-time users, no version of the listening typewriter was better than traditional dictating methods.
John D. Gould, John Conti, Todd Hovanyecz
CHI2