2001 Conference Proceedings
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2001 Table of Contents
Word Cueing for Persons with Writing Difficulties: WordQ
Fraser Shein
Tom Nantais
Rose Nishiyama
Cynthia Tam
Paul Marshall
Bloorview MacMillan Centre
350 Rumsey Road, Toronto
Canada, M4G 1R8
E-mail: fshein@bloorviewmacmillan.on.ca
Introduction
Word prediction programs were originally designed for individuals
with physical disabilities, to reduce the physical demands of
typing. Relatively recently, these programs have been adopted by
educators to provide assistance to students with learning
problems who have difficulty with the mechanical aspects of text
generation such as spelling and punctuation (MacArthur, 1996).
Commercial word prediction products have gradually begun to
include features specifically targeted for this application, such
as integrated text-to-speech capabilities. This paper describes a
new software package, called WordQ, which further integrates text
generation assistance strategies with the software that people
typically use for word processing on personal computers.
MacArthur et al. (1991) believe that the use of technology alone
does not facilitate development of writing skills, instead, it
should be used in combination with instructions on writing
strategies. Technology is not used to correct deficits but rather
to provide a compensatory approach that seeks to circumvent or
‘work around’ deficits while capitalizing on
strengths (Raskind, 1994). Both word prediction and
text-to-speech have been used for such compensation, allowing
users to focus more on idea generation.
The success of word prediction for spelling assistance depends
strongly upon the dictionary and the prediction algorithm. In
addition, certain levels of visual and cognitive skills are
demanded of the user. These demands are important considerations
for individuals who may also have visual deficits, attention
problems and other cognitive concerns. Proper configuration of
word prediction software should help lessen these demands.
Flexibility in presentation and interaction of the software is
necessary to match the specific visual-cognitive needs and
learning profile of the user.
Text-to-speech can also be a powerful writing tool for persons
whose oral language skills are superior to their written language
abilities. It enables these persons to use their general language
sense to monitor their writing, and catch errors in grammar,
spelling and punctuation that might otherwise go unrecognized
(Hunt-Berg, et al., 1994; MacArthur, 1998). Visually highlighting
words as the speech synthesizer reads them helps writers focus
their attention on the words or sentences they have written. When
text-to-speech is combined with word prediction, it can help
users locate the target word in the prediction list. Lewis et al.
(1998) found this combination to be more effective in reducing
spelling errors than using word prediction alone.
Overall Design Considerations
The central philosophy behind the design of WordQ is that the
product’s features and command functions should cater to
the specific needs of writers with learning problems. As the
design developed, it became clear that the software would need to
go beyond simple word prediction and text-to-speech. In this
larger view, word prediction can be seen as a particular example
of a more general approach which we call word "cueing" –
the process of supplying appropriate visual and auditory cues to
assist the writer with text composition. Examples of word cueing
follow in the discussion of WordQ’s features below. Other
key design issues included the need for simple-yet-flexible
design and presentation; minimal visual distractions; intuitive
interaction; a customizable dictionary that matches a
writer’s vocabulary; allowance for topical words; and
integration of speech synthesis. A final issue, identified by
MacArthur (1996) and Raskind (1998) was compatibility with
standard applications. This design criterion ensures that
individuals with learning difficulties have equal access to
standard applications and it reduces the possible high cost and
problems of portability and compatibility of information.
Specific Design Features
WordQ has two main windows that float over the user’s word
processor (Figure 1). One of these windows displays word
predictions as the user types and the other is a toolbar that
provides access to WordQ’s commands and options. The word
prediction features are designed for simplicity and flexibility.
After the first one to three letters of a word are typed, the
prediction window displays a list of several words, typically
five, to complete typing the word. To help the user distinguish
words, each word can be spoken in turn using text-to-speech. The
user can control this auditory browsing with the keyboard or the
mouse.
After completing a word, the WordQ uses knowledge of that word
to predict the next word, including the correct word form. Such
predictions are based on statistical information about how words
are typically used together. As the user begins typing the next
word, WordQ uses knowledge of the previous word to influence the
words presented in the prediction list so that proper word forms
are given priority. The knowledge base associated with the WordQ
dictionary was generated by sampling a very large amount of text
across the Internet at different writing levels. The vocabulary
list for prediction is completely customizable -- WordQ can be
tailored to an individual’s writing level and typical
subject matter. A larger background dictionary spell checks and
stores unrecognized words in a special review area for later
acceptance or rejection. It adapts to the user’s writing
style both in terms of word frequencies and common word
combinations. As well, custom vocabularies can be created by
importing text files containing typical text. Users and teachers
can identify particular groups of words within a vocabulary as
special "topics." When a topic is active (e.g., baseball), those
words are given a higher weighting in the predictions.
Figure 1: WordQ supplies word predictions in a window that
floats over the user’s word processor. Users can control
WordQ’s behavior through the toolbar in the top
right.
Text-to-speech is also used to enhance writing and editing.
WordQ can echo letters, words, and sentences as the user types.
Letter echo confirms typing a character. Word echo helps signal
spelling errors; an incorrectly spelled word is spoken
letter-by-letter. Word echo also confirms the selection of a
predicted word. Sentence echo helps the user hear the word flow
in a sentence to decide whether the right words and punctuation
have been used. All of these echo features can be turned on or
off from the WordQ toolbar.
A special text-reading mode is also provided to facilitate
proofreading. With Microsoft Word, WordPad or Notepad, text can
be highlighted and spoken word-by-word within that application
(Figure 2). The user can also step individually between words and
detect problems such as missing words. For other word processors
(as well as non-editing applications like web browsers), selected
text can be read back without the highlighting or navigation
capabilities.
Figure 2: A special text reading mode is used for proofreading
directly within the user’s word processing
application.
Great efforts have been taken to keep WordQ simple and easy to
use. It does not confront the user with excessive or confusing
features. It is designed with those key features that make a real
difference and with minimal and logical settings. The word list
is visually simple so it does not distract the user and take
attention away from the writing task. It can follow the text
input cursor or it can be locked in any position. The following
list describes the specific ease-of-use features incorporated
into WordQ
Works under Windows 95/98/NT/2000
Functions transparently with any text editing program
Completes words using previous word knowledge and
frequency-of-use
Predicts next word using previous word knowledge and
frequency-of-use (option to turn off)
Predicts phrases
Predicts words at cursor location, including mid-word in existing
text.
Allows undoing of word selections (Esc key)
Displays word list by most likely or alphabetic order
Displays word list vertically or horizontally
Displays user choice of up to 10 words (typically 5)
Allows user choice of word list font
Automatically sizes word list
Word list follows the text cursor or may be fixed
Allows word selection by either number line or number keypad,
and/or mouse selection
Removes unwanted spaces and inserts correct spacing around
punctuation following a predicted word
Supports international characters
Incorporates a user dictionary for individual writing styles
(customizable; self-adapting; typically under 5,000 words)
Allows importing text files to customize user dictionary
Supports customizable topic word lists to focus prediction
Includes a background dictionary for spell checking (60,000 words
US/Canada)
Holds novel words/spelling errors for later review
Allows novel words to be manually added while typing
Includes Microsoft text-to-speech engine
Allows word list to be spoken by browsing with arrow keys or
mouse
Echos typing with speech (letters/words/sentences)
Reads text aloud within application (word-by-word highlighting
and speaking words)
Acknowledgments
Financial support for WordQ's development was provided by the
Ontario Rehabilitation Technology Consortium, supported by the
Ontario Ministry of Health. A number of individuals have provided
substantial technical assistance at various stages of the
project: Shae Birch, Simon Frank, Fiona Kong, Colin Laine, Sherri
Parkins, Pat Stoddart, Jeffrey Tucker and John Temprile.
References
Hunt-Berg, M., Rankin, J. L. and Beukelman, D. R. (1994). Ponder
the possiblities: computer- supported writing for struggling
writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
pp.169-178
Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W. Ashton, T. M. and Kieley, C. L.
(1998). Word processing tools for students with learning
disabilties: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry
speed. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(2),
95-108.
MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., and Graham, S. (1991). A model
for writing instruction: integrating word processing and strategy
instruction into a process approach to writing. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, pp. 230-236.
MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing
processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 344-354.
MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Assistive technology for writing.
Perspectives, 24(2), 16-18.
Raskind, M. H. (1994). Learning disabilities in adult-hood. In P.
J. Gerber & H. B. Reiff (Eds.), Assistive Technology and
Adults with Learning Disabilities: A Rationale for Use. Reading,
MA: Andover Medical Publisher.
Raskind, M. H. (1998). Assistive technology for individuals with
learning disabilities: How far have we come? Perspectives, 24(2),
20-26.
WordQ is a trademark of Bloorview MacMillan Centre.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2001 Table of Contents
Return to Table of
Proceedings
Reprinted with author(s) permission. Author(s) retain copyright.