Conversation: fx-discuss: Re: NoKb
Date: Thu Oct 29, 1998 06:04 am
Jimmy Brokaw wrote:
> I was wondering about claim wording - since so little data is typed
> into computers, couldn't one honestly say that CD-ROMs, hard disks,
> and modems all enter more data into the average computer than a
> keyboard?
>
> A microphone on mono, 44kHz, 16-bit sound enters about 5-6 megabytes
> a minute of data - more than I can type!
>
> I was just wondering on how you perceive the intent of the claim
> to avoid this snitch....
Jimmy,
Sorry for the long delay in replying. Per my standard practice, I'll be cross-posting this to fx-discuss.
I am from the "intent" school of thought on judging, so I won't merely be counting bits. I will be looking for a rise in the use of products like ViaVoice or Naturally speaking, or digitizing tablets with Really Nifty Handwriting Recognition 6.0. (not an exclusive list...) For the most part, a YES judgment would require that either that something other than keyboards be used to enter the types of data today entered predominantly using keyboards or that the forms of data themselves change in ways I can't predict now. (Bear in mind that I would consider an audio encoding of a five letter word to represent about five bytes, not the amount of data required to encode and stream the audio. No reason to "penalize" ASCII just because it packs information more densely, and that's not the intent of the claim as I read it.)
Conversation: fx-discuss: question on NoKb
Date: Wed May 30, 2007 07:38 am
(Chris Hibbert asked for clarification on NoKb. His body text appears below.)
Chris,
Thanks for the inquiry. Keep in mind that NoKb is one of the old Idea Futures claims that carried over in the switch to Foresight Exchange. To put it mildly, it was not written with concrete, objective judging criteria.
If the mailing list archive is correct, the last request for clarification was from Jimmy Brokaw in 1998. I'm trying to keep my responses down to once a decade, but I'll make an exception here.
Eight-and-a-half years ago, I indicated that a YES judgment would require "either that something other than keyboards be used to enter the types of data today entered predominantly using keyboards or that the forms of data themselves change in ways I can't predict now."
To elaborate at the extremes, the replacement of keyboards by voice-recognition software or handwriting-recognition software clearly should count. My BeyondTV box, digitizing this afternoon's Mr. Rogers Neighborhood so my toddler can watch it tonight, should not.
Moving in from the extremes, using a stylus to take notes on an iPhone should count. Using voice recognition to dial a stored contact should not. As a more direct answer to your question, handhelds, tablets and the like certainly do some jobs that a 1995 Idea Futures author would have considered part of the "computing world."
Frankly, the salient example in my mind right now is the Crackberry. The installed base (of, what, eight million people?) squints at a tiny screen and pecks at a keyboard with their sixteen million thumbs. If that persists through 2015, that would be a strong argument against a YES judgment in NoKb.
--- Chris Hibbert <hibbert@mydruthers.com> wrote:
> You are the judge on FX for the NoKb claim, which
> says "By the year 2015, keyboards will no longer
> be the predominant mode of data entry in the
> computing world." It's still more than 7.5 years
> to the beginning of 2015, but I'd like a little
> clarification on what the claim means.
>
> (Partly because it may affect the port claim,
> which is due in 2.5 years.)
>
> So the question is, what constitutes "the
> computing world" at this point? I won't ask
> you to speculate on what "the computing world"
> will mean in another decade, but at this point,
> does it include things like bluetooth phones and
> PDAs? I assume laptops are included, but doubt
> that they will reach 25% penetration. From what
> we've heard about the iPhone, do you expect that
> to qualify? As far as I can tell, it will provide
> access to telephony and entertainment without a
> keyboard. There may be aftermarket hacks to allow
> more general applications, but Apple doesn't seem
> to intend to ship them, or make the platform open.
> So will it be part of the "computing world" since
> it's from a computer company?
>
> I think this is worth answering in your Judge's
> statement.
>
> I'd like to point out that your Judge's Statement
> said "I will seek the guidance of the claim's
> owner/author in interpreting the claim. It's his
> or her question - s/he ought to get the answer
> sought", but the owner hasn't ever made a trade
> on FX.
Conversation: RE: fx-discuss: NoKb
Date: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:00 am
On 3/7/2010 6:20 AM, Christopher Van Kirk wrote:
> Would something like this satisfy NoKb?
>
> http://www.swypeinc.com/
Certainly. Handwriting recognition, whether natural or learned (like, e.g., Inferno or Graffiti), is squarely within the meaning of the claim. Voice recognition and scan/OCR would be other non-controversial examples.
Keep in mind that the claim turns on keyboards being the "predominant mode of data entry in the computing world," not merely the availability of alternatives. I'm made some clarifying comments in the past and would point you to them if the mailing list archive were online. (Ken has been alerted.)
Conversation: RE: fx-discuss: NoKb
Date: Mon Mar 08, 2010 01:51 pm
Short response:
I will treat any relevant device with a real or virtual
keyboard that operates by individual real or virtual keypresses
as a "mode of data entry" that is a "keyboard" for purposes
of NoKb. Predictive text entry/text completion as
part of a data entry system will not in itself cause me to treat a device that
is a "keyboard" for purposes of NoKb as if
it were not such a "keyboard."
Detailed response:
This note is in response to a few questions regarding NoKb that came up yesterday.
Within the context of the claim, Christopher Van Kirk
inquired as to whether the Swype input system would
constitute a "mode of data entry" that is not a "keyboard"
for purposes of NoKb. For comparison, I had issued
guidance in 1998 that a handwriting recognition system like Graffiti would
constitute a "mode of data entry" that is not a "keyboard"
for purposes of NoKb. I had also issued guidance in
2007 that a BlackBerry keyboard would constitute a "mode of data
entry" that is a "keyboard" for purposes of NoKb.
Yesterday, I indicated that I would consider Swype to
be a "mode of data entry" that is not a "keyboard" for
purposes of NoKb.
In categorizing Swype, I
described it as a handwriting recognition system. As Sam Fentress pointed out,
the Swype input system (in which the user swipes his
finger over a virtual keyboard on a touchscreen and
lifts his finger to indicate spaces) is not a handwriting recognition system.
While admitting carelessness, I would note that - virtual QWERTY keyboard
notwithstanding - Swype requires the user to learn a
new data input method that is quite distinct from touch-typing or hunt 'n'
peck. My use of the term "handwriting recognition" was meant only to
indicate where I thought Swype fit within the two categories
(handwriting recognition and voice recognition) that I had previously laid out.
In a related question, Jeffrey Siegal
asked whether any on-screen keyboard would constitute a "keyboard"
for purposes of NoKb. Excellent question,
and it invites one to consider whether a BlackBerry Bold (with its
thumb-operated keyboard) should end up on one side of the line and a BlackBerry
Storm (with a virtual QWERTY keyboard on a touchscreen)
should end up on the other. If the Bold and Storm end up on different sides,
how should I view sliders like the next-generation Bold, the Palm Pre or the
Motorola Droid?
For purpose of clarification, I will treat any relevant
device with a real or virtual keyboard that operates by individual real or
virtual keypresses as a "mode of data
entry" that is a "keyboard" for purposes of NoKb.
This would make each of the traditional BlackBerry thumb-keyboard, the iPhone's virtual keyboard and the I-Tech laser projection
virtual keyboard a "mode of data entry" that is a
"keyboard" for purposes of NoKb. For
further clarification, predictive text entry/text completion as part of a data
entry system will not in itself cause me to treat a device that is a
"keyboard" for purposes of NoKb as if it
were not such a "keyboard."
The categorization in the previous paragraph makes Swype a close case. One could argue that the Swype keyboard is merely an efficient method for using a
virtual keyboard. (For comparison, I would not change my view of the iPhone's virtual keyboard if switched to a Dvorak layout.)
Jeffrey also suggested that I include any clarifying comments in the judge's statement for the claim. To that end, I have extracted my earlier responses regarding NoKb to a plain htm file on my personal Comcast web page and have linked there from the claim page. I would rather point to the discussion than try to edit the discussion down to something that wouldn't overwhelm the page, and I am leery of removing context when linking to it is feasible.