The other day I was driving home and tuned to the local NPR station. I caught part of a show where they were discussing what to do about the dangers of people texting while driving.
One suggestion was a new smartphone app that could translate speech to text and then send it. So you would say “Send text to Joe”, it would confirm, and then you would speak the text you want sent. Then, of course, Joe’s text back to you would be spoken aloud by the phone.
Am I the only one who thinks this is silly? We already have hands free equipment for phones. Why bother with the extra step of translating to and from text?
No. I see now that I did not word the OP clearly. They were discussing an existing new app. They even played with it on the air. It didn’t work well. They’d say something like “send text to Joe Smith” and it would reply with something like “sending text to Jane Sheldon”. This happened repeatedly for different names. This struck me as very strange since my several years old flip phone does voice dialing nearly flawlessly.
Isn’t the possible range of spoken words that voice dialling needs to understand somewhat limited? Basically, the names that in your phonebook, and numbers 0-9.
ETA Reading your OP again I’m confused: Are you saying that there is no point in sending a text (or email) when you can just call anyway?
They were discussing the dangers of texting while driving so the context was texting. The app they were discussing was to enable hands free texting by converting voice to text. I guess emailing might be a case where this could be appropriate, but for general texting, if you’re going to use your voice anyway than why not just call?
About the range of spoken words. The part they were having trouble with was telling it who to send a text to. That would require pretty much the same range of words as telling it who to dial, wouldn’t it?
I’m not much of a texter, but there have been occasions when it was the appropriate format. If you wanted to contact me during those times, you’d have to text me because I’d have the voice phone turned off.
I know I used to have to text the GirlChild when she was at school, where she theoretically wasn’t allowed to use a cellphone.
That’s not exactly what I meant. It’s more like having a voice>text function where the text that’s sent back then goes through a text>voice function. I suppose it might make some sense if the person on the other end has to use text for some reason, but then that’s on them and maybe they should be the ones with an app that translates text>voice and voice>text.
I don’t see any need to use texting from a car to begin with (other than the email case, which is really a whole different thing anyway).
But then I don’t see the point of most texting anyway. It was considered a huge technological leap when we were able to go from the telegraph to the telephone. Why are we trying so hard to go back now?
Asynchronicity. Email and text messaging are exactly the same sort of thing: communication that does does not require an instant response. Hell, letters and telegrams are close analogues. The utility added by texting was that it could be done very cheaply with a handheld device. Nowadays, of course, the various communication protocols are all handled by the same pocket-sized gizmo, even gasp real time interactive voice calls.
If both parties are suitably equipped then (voice or text) sent to (voice or text) seems useful, allowing flexibility on both sides of the conversation.
The reason I texted The GirlChild: she couldn’t talk on the phone at school. Even calling in to get voicemail was problematic. They also would not allow student calls to/from the office, unless the school nurse declared you sick enough. And they removed all the payphones from the school. So the only way to communicate (like, say, when her mom would be late or when her g’ma was picking her up instead) was text. A text-to-voice would have been the opposite of what she needed. Although a voice-to-text might have worked.
The recent reason you would have had to text me: because I was in a hospital room for hours on end. I didn’t want to disturb the patient with phone calls. So people who were calling to check on the patient, check on me, offer to bring food, etc., had to text. Again, I wouldn’t have used a conversion, the whole point was to not have to talk.
The SO also uses text to announce what’s on for the weekend at our place. It’s hella easier than trying to call 20 people.
Now, I wouldn’t be doing any of those from a car, normally. I rarely even answer the phone when I’m driving. But if, say, my SO was driving to pick up some food for me while I was at the hospital, I can see where this would have been handy.
Also, I still text the GirlChild, because she doesn’t answer her phone or check her voicemail. Text is about the only way she’ll respond. [Kids these days!]
Not that it’s something I plan to get, I’m just saying I can see why someone who used text a lot would want it.
