Fam Pract Manag. 1999 Oct;6(9):10.
Editor's note: The following letter is in response to recent FPM articles about voice-recognition software. See “Voice-Recognition Software: A Tool for Encounter Notes,” FPM, February 1999, and “A Comparison of Voice-Recognition Programs,” FPM, April 1999.
To the Editor:
To (I) have been using Tack initially speaking (Dragon Naturally Speaking) Medical Suite for approximately six months. A few (I feel) personally obligated to percent (present) how poorly the system actually works. I have read many articles suggesting how useful and amazingly natural the systems can work, but, unfortunately, most of these articles are misleading. It has been a struggle for me to maintain any consistent productivity from the software from the very beginning. In fact, it seems like a work (it worked) better initially that it has (than it is) now.
To avoid any liability of saying what (how I) actually feel about the software, (I) have simply decided to give an example of how poorly (it) works. He (You) can see already (how) the most simple words are either missed or mis-typed (mistyped). The claim that this is “true continue his (continuous) speech recognition” is simply wish for (wishful) thinking, aggressive advertising or flat outline (flat-out lying).
Nine months ago, we had (a) staffing problems (problem) in (and) decided to pursue one of the voice-activated systems. After several months of struggling to get both (the) hardware and the software activated, with I labor of (we finally got it up and) running about six months ago. Initially, it seems (seemed) like the system would be quite useful. However, because of numerous buttocks (bugs) and software difficulties, I feel the system is actually not only not burning (improving) beginning (but getting) worse.
I assure you but (that) I have not altered in 80 (any words) or phrases above, except to add the parenthetical explanations. I would recommend that anyone considering the voice-activated system use extreme caution. Waiting a few years until all of the lungs (bugs) are removed seems to be the most prudent option.
Copyright © 1999 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions