Smartype, New Version and Developments

Smartype Homepage

As some background, I had never used any abbreviation programs before. I had customized my WP5.1 keyboard (I use 5.1 in a Windows environment) to make macro execution easier, and I was using approximately 1500 macros regularly. I was typing at speeds in excess of 120 wpm, with a full-day hourly average of well over 80. I was experiencing some discomfort in my hands and arms.

Except for a minimum number of words and phrases that I needed to enter as unique to my clientele, virtually every word I ever wanted always came up for choosing whenever I wanted it. Within about three days, I was typing steadily, and within a month my speed had returned virtually to its pre-Smartype level, but with none of the physical discomfort. Over about six weeks, my speed gradually increased.

During this time, I was still very much drawn to Instant Text, so much so that I eventually ordered it. I thought that I would use it for, perhaps, e-mail entry, or for another client of mine, which requires very detailed scientific typing on an arcane subject, with very specific vocabulary. And I longed for sentence continuations. However, when I got it I was disappointed with the way it worked. I returned it, but my return crossed in the mail with the new version, 1.03, so when it came I decided to give it another try.

Here are some of my thoughts on comparing the two. I would hope that these discussions will enable future users to be able to not have to try both, but perhaps that is what it will always come down to, because what seems to be important is how each user responds to the very different techniques of input and the requirements of each person's production.

One thing I like about both IT and ST is that the end result of any combination of letters typed shows up on the screen. Thus, you don't have to remember any particular abbreviation; you can try out several combinations and see what is going to be produced. Also, you can see several of those choices (10-12 on the first screen, and with ST you can Page Down to see more at once. With ST you either keep typing to bring your choice up, or you type a number to do so. Once it is on top, you execute with a space or with punctuation.

With IT, you have a choice of either phrases or words. If you want a word, you simply keep typing--and it's nice that you don't have to type all the letters, just the next unique one. You execute with a slash. If you want a phrase, however, and you see six different phrases all beginning with the same combination of letters, you must hit either Ctrl or Shift to highlight your phrase, and then must execute with a semicolon; I think you also have choices of [ or ].

Well, that was the first thing that set me back. Mary said IT did not flow naturally as language; I think that IT does not flow naturally as typing. I don't like to have to add the thought in that sometimes I use a slash, sometimes a semicolon, and sometimes a space (if I have typed out the entire word).

One reason I don't like Windows word processing programs is that, for a speed typist, taking hands off the keyboard to handle a mouse slows you down enormously. Likewise (for me), having to learn to use a semicolon instead of a space between words seemed like something I would not choose to change to.

With IT, I used a large document group to create my glossaries, but many common phrases (like "CBC, differential, platelets, and liver function") didn't come up at all. Also, many words weren't there. Now, I know that part of this (the words especially) would have been the same had I started out with ST without Mary's vocabulary, but it still just didn't act the way I thought it would. Even though there were many continuations, it was awkward to have to look down at the list and assess it and then use the Ctrl key to pick the one I wanted. I don't want to have to use my eyes so much; it slows me down.

I use a lot of hard spaces, and hard and discriminatory hyphens. I do not like to have months and days split, like "March" on one line and "13, 1996" on the next. I do not want x-ray to split at the hyphen, but I do want through-and-through to split at the hyphen. Because IT put everything into generic text, I lost all the hard spaces, and the hyphens all became non-splitting. What I would gain in speed or ease of entry would be lost in the proofing. The way I type now is to type it right the first time, and then if line lengths change because of later spelling changes or editing, I don't have to worry about the splits being in the wrong places. Perhaps many other typists out there don't care about this, but it is important to me. Smartype can handle that need of mine.

With Smartype, even though you don't have to memorize abbreviations, if you do happen to memorize easily, then you don't have to look at what's coming up, because each phrase or word does in fact have a unique identifier. With IT, since many phrases would come up with the same combination of letters, there was no way to customize each. If the one I wanted wasn't the most frequent, and therefore on top, I couldn't just type to get to it, I was forced to use the Ctrl or Shift key, which breaks my typing flow. Also, with IT each phrase must always consist of exactly the first letter of each word. To me, that's awkward. I don't think in terms of exact words in that regard. In ST I have some abbreviations like that, for instance, ATCOTC for "at the completion of the case," but I find that, in terms of speed, typing out that particular phrase is barely worth it. So, while IT may in fact use fewer keystrokes, to me those keystrokes are not natural typing, and do not increase my speed.

Now, I will say that I'm quite sure anyone can learn anything and get faster, and so if I needed to, I could get fast with IT, too. Mary said she would use IT if she "were a non-typist," and I can agree with her; not that one would need to be a non-typist, but I wouldn't switch now unless I were disabled in some way and unable to continue typing in my present way. If I lost a hand or something and still wanted to support myself doing medical transcription, I would switch to IT in an instant. But right now, I don't see that it can offer me any more speed than I have, and it would require a big adjustment. To me, IT just doesn't "think" the way I do. That doesn't mean it's not a great program--it has many nice features and I'm sure will be terrific for many people--but for my individual style it's just not right. I wouldn't even use it with ST's vocabuary dumped into it--I don't like the semicolon and slashes instead of spaces, and I don't like not having the ease of creating phrases using more than just the first letter of the words.

There is no doubt that IT is easy to use and easy to set up, and has many different possible applications. However, for me personally, what I care about is producing my work accurately and as quickly as possible. ST and IT are both very good programs, with very different feel to them, and thus appealing to completely different people. Each has good points, each has drawbacks. . .In the first 20 minutes of using ST, I knew that it would work well for me, and I knew in the first 20 minutes of using IT that it would not, and I hope this will help others decide as easily as possible which group they fall into.

For me, being able to approach 1:1 means a real dramatic change in both financial and time possibilities. It used to be that a 1-hour tape would take me 1 hour to download and at least 2 hours to transcribe, thus 3 hours total. If I can approach 1:1 and thus keep the phone charges down to a reasonable minimum, then a 1-hour tape would take, say, 1.3 hours to do. Thus, the actual expenditure of time is 1.3 versus 3. The phone bill would be higher, but so would my ability to produce more work, and psychologically it's enormously more acceptable.

It's pretty exciting to think you're being successful at live transcription. For one thing, I so often couldn't hear something on my taped stuff, and when I would ask my colleague (who has the original dictation) to listen, or even play it over the phone, it was clear as day! So there will be time saved not having to fuss over that kind of stuff, too. My work is primarily for an outpatient surgery center. So I get a lot of podiatry, plastic surgery and breast reduction/augmentation, ophthalmology and cataract operations, orthopedic foot/knee/elbow/ hand/shoulder operations, hernia repairs, and voluntary sterilizations. That sort of stuff. Then I also do a dermatologist (I had to add in a lot of abbreviations for him), an ophthalmologist who no longer does surgery, and a neurologist. I also occasionally sub in the fields of endocrinology, plastic surgery, and physical medicine/rehab. Probably about 80 doctors fairly consistently, but about 150 possible. So it's pretty varied, and your wide experience really made it easier. I think if I typed in one specialty only I might not have wanted so many abbreviations, but I could tell as I went along that your experience and mine were very similar (yours somewhat broader) and also that your lines of thinking were quite similar to mine, or if not similar at least consistent enough that I can often guess at what abbreviation you might have.

In terms of importing whole paragraphs or standards (we call them "templates"), there are three eye specialists who do have a batch of templates that we use, and a number of others who dictate the same thing so often, and are so hard to understand, that I often just copy the last one and make changes as they speak. However, with these new speeds and transcribing live, I don't think it's worth it any more; I can go faster just typing what they say this time (assuming I can tell what they are saying!). I have found that small common phrases are better than long ones simply because they are so often said in such subtly different ways. You know, "the patient was brought to" and "the patient was taken to," and then suddenly "the patient was first brought to." If you have only the long phrase, it takes too much time to back up and put the odd word in, so I make more use, I think, of the 2- and 3-word phrases since I type for so many different doctors.

I was able to use blocks to add hard spaces after the names of the months and Dr., Mrs., etc., like I wanted. I also use blocks to put in hard hyphens like in x-ray so it won't split.

The only thing that is currently hard for me is that many of my macros were real words, so I've had to give them up in this system (or use your abbreviation, which is longer). But since ST uses so many fewer keystrokes, it's not a bad trade, just a lot to unlearn.

I do love the "j" (sjo) abbreviations. The only part I still use as my macros is for 2-0, 3-0, etc., because I have to have the hard hyphen and because my macros are "20," "30,", etc., and I can't yet use the numbers in ST. (Apparently we may be able to at some point.) I also separately macro the suture type, V for Vicryl, P for Prolene, etc. But I will probably switch over on this soon, too, and just block them all for the hyphen problem, because as you said it's a lot easier to use the letters than the numbers. But my one-letter macros are still tempting!

Smartype has enabled me to learn at least 70% faster. As you read information about the application, you will understand why. I have studied terminology; however, I am not capable of spelling all these new words, and I was either using my Taber's or Dor land's to look up the spelling or stopping to use my spellchecker. Using the spellchecker is okay, but it is a slow process. With Smartype, the words are displayed as I type, and it functions as a real-time spellchecker. This has made a tremendous diff erence in the speed of my learning process. Smartype is just that, "SMART," and thus 95% of the time the word I am typing is displayed in the list of words below. I can either continue to type the word or select by the number. Now the only time I need to look up a word is when I do not know what the word means. In this respect, I am learning how to spell the words and doing so much faster.

I am not a fast typist, but I will be able to increase my speed due to Smartype's abbreviation feature. Since I am relatively new at this, I have not used the power of Smartype's abbreviation feature to its fullest. Smartype eliminates the need to memor ize abbreviations. When I type hivp, human immunodeficiency virus positive is displayed on the Smartline, and all I do is hit the space bar to have "human immunodeficiency virus positive" read into the text.

In addition to the power and the fact that it is like having an on-line reference book, Smartype is really simple to use. String several words in length or a single word can be added to the vocabulary as needed. In addition, ST has a macro feature that works in conjunction with WordPerfect's macro feature and is easy to use because of the step-by-step, well-written documentation.

I have used this application daily for well over a month and have yet to find one bug or glitch. Without a doubt, Smartype is one of the most valuable tools I have acquired,and I can't wait for the revision with the updated terminology.

The new ST is spiffy, up-to-date, a smooth operating engine that does so much and does it well. It increases your production, increases your accuracy, lessens the wear and tear on keyboards and hands, puts fun back into your keyboarding, serves as an in- document reference, serves as an aid in spellchecking, speeds up your spellchecking, speeds your abbreviation building, tells you when you have made a typo (all done from within document), capitalizes words for you, the list goes on. This is one you have to try. A no-risk, 30-day money -back guarantee. Out VERY soon.

More on Smartype Revised:
Smartype is a speed-typing engine for WP5.1 and WP5.1+ that automatically cuts down on the keystrokes needed to generate words contained in the vocabulary. We've seen many changes in our profession recently, but this one is different and exciting. It pu ts fun back into "typing" and increases your typing speed and productivity, depending on how finely you tune it. This program, through its patented process, actually shortens every word contained in the 50,000-word vocabulary and, at times, even shortens your own abbreviations. You see this process on screen through the use of the Smartline, a blocked-out line just below your line of typing which aids in proofreading as well. You can learn it gradually and naturally. Your memory is constantly aided by the use of the Smartline.

Your keystrokes are displayed on the Smartline, and when you have typed enough keystrokes for ST to generate the word you need, it appears on the Smartline and is determined by statistical frequency. You simply hit the space bar and keep going. You can save well over half your keystrokes without even incorporating any of your abbreviations. But if you do make abbreviations, then there is even more productivity gain. Smartype allows for building Smartphrases, Smartblocks, fill-ins and macros. Phrases co ntain less than 37 characters and blocks are for larger chunks of text. Abbreviations are typed in as "abbv=abbreviation" and appear on the Smartline. When you type an abbreviation, it appears in full on the Smartline, so you have an opportunity to ver ify before reading the expanded form into the text. If you are wrong, you only have to erase the abbv, not the long form.

The new upgrade will contain many enhancements, including a blank vocabulary if you would prefer to start from scratch, and changes are being made to the keys that expand abbreviations you might make. There are features in ST that are under your control: turning the Smartline on and off and controlling the speed at which the choice list of words appears at the bottom of the screen. You also have the ability to modify the keystrokes that tell ST when to expand a word. This sets the word order for you an d decreases the number of keystrokes required for the words that you use most often. Additions and deletions to the vocabulary are done simply and easily. The on-screen features of ST cut down on the common expansion errors and function as a constant sp ellchecker; when a word is misspelled, "No Match" appears on the Smartline.

This is a user-friendly program. If the necessary time is taken to rearrange, add, and delete words according to your needs, within a short time you will be realizing amazing savings in keystrokes. The learning curve can be gradual. After a few days yo u will be back up to speed; with continued use, you should increase your speed and productivity, saving about 70% of your keystrokes, i.e., typing 3 keystrokes and having 10 printed. You can reach me at strtover@yrkpa.kias.com to obtain ST at $250.

Of added interest, this company is willing to listen to suggestions for enhancements to this product and will work with us to make this the best program out there for medical transcription. So, make the call and be on your way to becoming a "Smartranscriptionist."

11/11/95
Today, I worked with ST and kept meticulous time records. I used my good-for-nothing hands, my splints and little old ST; and here is what happened. For five minutes, I typed at a speed of 48 wpm using nothing but the Smartline. This was as fast as my fingers could go, and this was a push. Normal hands can go much faster; but, in reality, when counting up what ST had generated for me, it was quite a different story.

Although I was going slow and doing what seemed to be next to nothing as far as typing, ST was expanding words for me at the rate of 97 wpm. When the day was done, ST had allowed me to generate 1331 lines of transcription with hands I haven't used for ty ping more than 11 minutes straight in years. In reality, I typed the equivalent of only 750 lines of transcription. Now I AM impressed. Well, that's all the testing I'm going to do. Those of you who may need ST because of hand problems will just have to try it for yourselves. For those of you who don't have problems using a keyboard, ST is a cakewalk. For those of you who type using abbreviation expanders, ST is a piece of cake. It seems this is another piece of technology that we can put to good use. THANKS, MR. AND MRS. SMARTYPE.

This is for those of you out there with hand problems, neurologic problems, elbow problems, whatever. For four years, I had been unable to use my hands to type longer than 11 minutes at high speed or four pages at slow speed, so I switched to voice recognition for transcription. I got curious about this Smartype program that is soon to be released in a revised version, and I wondered what it might be able to do for me and for others who are having problems using a keyboard.

I decided to try and type with it and see how far I could go. My current version is basically in its original condition as I had added only minimal shortcuts, abbreviations and format blocks. When I started this little experiment, I felt it was best jus t to start using ST as it was intended: as a text generator and as an aid to cutting keystrokes and increasing productivity. For me, that meant just being able to type.

During the last two weekends in October, I ventured back to the keyboard for some serious hand use. What a marvelous surprise was in store for me. The first Sunday, with my splints on, I typed 14 pages without stopping albeit at probably 45 wpm; but, th e speed was not the important factor to me. It was merely to see if ST could aid in relieving the stress of using the keyboard. When I had finished the 14 pages, I had no pain; my hands were not tired; my fingers did not hurt; my wrists were not aching; and I was not ready to cry. I also had n o typos as ST catches those, and I had no abbreviation expansion errors. This past Sunday, I typed 20 effortless pages, with splints, but with no pain.

I used ST exclusively with the Smartline by going just slow enough to catch every word expansion that came up on the Smartline. I expanded every word after only a few keystrokes. The actual typing was effortless. I don't know the exact reason why I was able to do this with this particular program. By using the Smartline as intended, I was catching every abbreviation and expanding every word after only a few keystrokes. I paused ever so slightly with my hand movements thus reducing the "repetitive" part of repetitive movement. This, along with the enormous reduction in the number of keystrokes needed to generate text, makes for a great deal of hand relief. I am impressed.

Of course, my current typing speed is much slower than my former speed before the hand injuries. I think that with time and practice, speed will gradually pick up. Whether this program will help someone maintain a high production level or if it can help equal one's former maximum typing speed before hand injuries remains to be seen. I will keep experimenting. Not having added any shortcuts, phrases or blocks of texts to my current version also factors into this somehow. Perhaps when the revised edition is out and I create shortcuts an d abbreviations of my own, I will find I can go still faster. Or perhaps that will make me too fast and cause problems. Who knows? Only time will tell. But in the interim, I just wanted to share this with those of you who may need help. Although I ca n't say everyone will have the same results as I did, I just took my time and didn't worry about how fast I used to go. I used the software and Smartline to its fullest and managed to do something I haven't been able to do for a long time. I truly appre ciate that. Fully expecting to have to stop after five or six pages, I was able to keep going and going. I have no idea how long I can continue to do this, but I am very grateful there is actually something out there that I can use.

Those with fast speed, high production and neither hand problems nor pain, will have to do your own experiments and then share with everyone. I can only relate this ST experience to keyboarding and hand problems of my own.