Slashdot Mirror
Google Drops Desktop Voice Search In Chrome (google.com)
PC World reports that even as Microsoft is pushing voice input on the desktop (in the form of an expanded role for its Cortana digital assistant), Google is responding to user (dis)interest in searching by voice from the desktop, by dropping "OK Google"-based voice commands in the latest iteration of Chrome. This seems too bad to me, so I wish they'd at least leave the voice input as an option; I've only lately been getting comfortable with search by voice on my phone, and though I've found the results to be hit or miss (my phone responds a bit too often to "OK," and seems to stumble even on some common words, spoken clearly), when it works I really like it.
Ok google, go away
There's a very narrow and specific set of circumstances where using it makes sense; but, in general, it's actually slower and takes more work to use it than the traditional methods of input.
#DeleteChrome
Voice search on the phone is natural. The phone is a device that historically is good at one thing, voice. Even though a modern phone has a decent keyboard input, t's still clumsy when on the go. When I'm out for a run or a ride and I want quick directions, or to dictate a note, send a text message, or check the train schedule, the voice interaction is vastly superior to wrestling my phone out of it's armband and typing something. The voice interaction isn't amazing, but it works about 80% of the time on the first try and that's good enough for me. I don't have to stop my workout and fumble around.
On the other hand, when I'm sitting at my desk I can, with two key strokes switch to my web browser and launch a new search tab. I can type about as fast as I can speak and my accuracy is probably around 95%; google makes up for the remaining 4% in spelling errors (searching for instead of ). I get better accuracy and less fumbling around if the room is loud. Also, in our quiet open-plan office I look like a total D-Bag talking to my monitor. That's a big plus. too.
The full-size keyboard isn't the end-all of interfaces, but for a desktop it's waaaay better than voice search. If voice search ever gets to the point where I can throw out a complex, natural language queries into the air a la ST-TNG, I'll switch. "Computer: Post a witty comment to SlashDot about voice interfaces and how bad they sucked in the naughties and teens"
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
Some disabled people are going to be very sad
I use it on my mobile sometimes because it seems quicker and easier than wrestling with the on-screen keyboard. On a device with a real keyboard I have no use for it.
It seems like the offending code as well as the functionality may have disappeared.
I'm all for removing stuff that isn't used much. It leads to larger binaries. Anything to reduce the size and complexity is a Good Thing.
I've never used voice search in Chrome, so for me it's not a big deal. However, since Google already have all that code written, there's no reason for them to just put it all into a plugin and stick it into the Chrome Store. Then those who want it can still have it.
The server tech isn't going to go away, as it's used for Voice Search on Android (which I do use frequently), so it shouldn't be a big deal for them to have it as a plugin.
that's why we can't have nice things.
There might be disinterest because it was a 'hidden setting' (at least for the longest time). I know I wasn't using it because it stopped working for no reason about two months ago. I assumed they just broke it like they do the rest of their stuff every time they touch something and force the update, or discontinue something I found useful. Forgive me while I rant for a moment...
These days I don't invest any time in anything Google does because I know it's going to be perpetually half broken until the day they silently drop it or decide to screw it up a la Maps while the community screams at the top of their lungs that the new version is shit. My theory on Google is that it isn't run by software engineers and sysadmins anymore, but rather by UI and UX focused kids straight out of school.
I have patches in the Linux kernel and I can't freakin' figure out how to send a text to a person I know since they mangled Google Voice into Hangouts. As an added bonus, when I send a call with Google Voice it no longer allows me to, you know, select which phone it should call me on - that's exactly half of the dialer's job and they couldn't get that in the product requirements apparently. I get more angry every time I log into voice.google.com to set which phone to call and there's a banner across the top that reminds me that I should use the Hangouts interface for using Voice. This is the quality of engineering left at Google.
My final "no shits to give" moment was when they discontinued the NaCL plugin architecture in Chrome with a smug "we told you a long time ago we were going to do this, you should have migrated your stuff." To which I wanted to wipe the smug away with a hammer while shouting "I didn't write our hardware vendor's frakkin' web client, I can't rewrite it and we need to be able to access IPMI interfaces for hundreds of boxes out in the field!" Needless to say, we're transitioning away from our Enterprise Google Apps/Docs/Domain account back to Microsoft (again). Those stories aren't related in any way other than I didn't bother putting up a fight when we were acquired and it was decided we'd use MS Office - I suspect I'm not the only one that didn't want to burn political capital on Google.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Let's face it, voice search makes sense on a phone where typing is usually quite a bit of a hassle. Is there anyone here who actually likes those on-screen keyboards (which makes me wonder what genius thought it's a smart move to no longer make phones with an actual keyboard and that it's so much more convenient to type on a virtual keyboard on a friggin' screen. I'd consider forcing him to use it a suitable punishment, but I think that would collide with that "cruel and unusual" part of some constitution)?
But on a desktop, with a real keyboard, there simply is no need for voice input unless you have a good reason not to use your hands.
And before someone answers, no, I don't think people are coherent enough for voice input when doing THAT in front of their computer...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
On my phone, "Okay, Google" can be set to respond in any application, or even when the phone is off.
On the desktop, "Okay, Google" only works if you've already opened up a search page.... at which point you may as well type your search.
I have very often wished that "Okay, Google" on Chrome were as convenient as on my phone - or that I could tell my phone to redirect results to my Desktop.
But once again, Google has decided that "our UI was so inconvenient that nobody ever used our product" translates to "nobody wants to use a feature similar to this"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Places where voice input is inconvenient: 1. When I don't want others to know I'm searching for the definition of a word I think I should already know. 2. At work. I.e. pretty much most of the time.
This is so much more about physical keyboard vs touch pad than it is about voice recognition.
I've been toying around with this to get voice controls on desktop. Seems OK but finding a good noise cancelling room mic is key. Another benefit here is you don't need a server transaction to analyze your voice as many "personal assistant" softwares seem to do.
Twinstiq, game news
Perhaps it was the UI (and they certainly didn't experiment much with that before they canned it), but to be fair, voice control is only really viable if you're on your own. And unlike phones, where input can be tricky, the keyboard is likely quicker and more accurate in pretty much every circumstance.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
... while the community screams at the top of their lungs ...
That is the part that gets me. Every time something changes in a google product and it's something I notice/use, I go look into it and see mountains of people saying "wtf is going on, this is a terrible change, please change it back/remove it/!" Further down the given page, someone posts a link to another discussion with some google employee or another effectively saying "too bad, have a nice day."
So it's not that they aren't hearing the feedback, they just don't seem to care. Their browser is heading down the path of Firefox, where they start changing that make no sense and drive their users away.
On the flip side, people complain, but they stick with the product. I assume this is why google ignores the feedback.
Google is going to come out with their own home automation suite like Amazon's Echo.
They bought GrandCentral years ago to turn into Google Voice. Their 'product' was the voice mail speech-to-text. They just wanted to train their voice systems.
Their 'Desktop' was a stop gap between being on the phone and being in the home. What ever demographic always used it, they're going to make a product and target it to them. They already know the age, geographic location, household, etc of everyone that uses their browser (and doesn't know how to disable them). That is going to be the core demographic
It's why Amazon Echo went to the people with Prime first. It was a limited Beta release and the households that bought Prime were likely the type to actually try out Amazon Echo for what Amazon is using it for.
It's a good thing Microsoft never changes anything then. Remember why you changed away from them in the first place?
I remember when Siri came out on the iPhone. Everyone thought is was so terrific to just ask a question verbally. But as with any technology like vocal recognition. The real life experience is much less positive then the hype. Cortana basically has the same issues as Siri or what Google voice search has. A lack of ability to properly decipher the human differences in how they speak. The end results for many is of more frustration then actually a productive help over just typing in a search topic. I have found this true with GPS systems in cars, voice activated calling, and all of the vocal services companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google provide. It just ends up being less useful then what was expected. At least I give Google credit for recognizing its limitations and low participation and just removing the feature.
"though I've found the results to be hit or miss (my phone responds a bit too often to "OK," and seems to stumble even on some common words, spoken clearly), when it works I really like it."
What I found works for me is to turn on the voice sampling that Google will store and use to recognize your voice.
My voice searches are flawless now, even with a cold, even right after I get up, and even when drunk.
If you don't mind giving Google your vocal samples, the voice search gets quite good.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Because I live in a world where I *don't* need to be tethered 24/7 to my desktop, it's nice to be able to quickly say "Okay, Google: " when I am in the same room, but not actually sitting at the keyboard.
"Okay, Google: " is fairly useless for anything that I don't have my phone out for, though.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Sure you like it when voice search hits the target. One thing I noticed was that animals, in a general sense, tend to like positive results and dislike negative ones. "I really like it when it works" shouldn't be enough of a justification for Google to keep that unused Chrome feature. You don't see a programmer saying "OK, Google. JavaScript array into object how to" out loud in an office full of colleagues just waiting to throw you everything they got just for the 2 minutes of fun mocking you...
It always surprises me that these sorts of changes come down as a decree rather than being turned into an option.
It's as if the notion that "some people might still want this" is a foreign concept. It eliminates the user having any choice in the matter, which to me seems the opposite of what computers are all about: choice and personalization.
Obviously Google had a reason to do this, but still- why not allow it as an option?
I just don't get this "my way or the highway" dictate coming down from on high...would it have been so hard or cost so much to make this a user-selectable option?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
...this week Chrome Desktop Audio Search. Could it be that Google is trying to force users off the desktop altogether? I mean clearly Microsoft has failed at that with its big Mobile First push. Perhaps Google can get it done.
It's a good thing Microsoft never changes anything then. Remember why you changed away from them in the first place?
Yes, Microsoft changes things - I don't deny that in the least bit. The difference is they nearly always announce it years ahead of time and stick to that schedule. I can't recall Microsoft completely screwing up since they phased out VB{A}6 for VB.NET, but I honestly don't use their products much, so I may be missing something obvious.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Yes. I tried this Google voice search once, and it turned my request into complete gibberish.
"OK Google what time is it in London?"
"Here is a supplier of extra small condoms."
If other -people- can't understand what you say, a lot of the time, what makes you think a dumb computer will understand?? 8-)