Description:Brief Description of the Drawings

Generally, the present disclosure relates to computer-implemented methods for evaluating performance. Particularly, the present disclosure relates to a method for evaluating typing accuracy.
Background
The background description includes information that may be useful in understanding the present invention. It is not an admission that any of the information provided herein is prior art or relevant to the presently claimed invention, or that any publication specifically or implicitly referenced is prior art.
In the domain of typing proficiency development, various methodologies have been deployed to enhance typing skills. Among these methodologies, the assessment of typing accuracy stands out as a critical component. This assessment often encompasses the presentation of a user interface for typing input, the selection of difficulty levels for typing tests, and the reception of typed input from users. These elements are crucial in determining the proficiency and progress of users in typing.
Further, the calculation of the Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and pre-determined correct sentences is employed as a means to quantitatively evaluate typing accuracy. The Levenshtein distance, a metric for measuring the difference between two sequences, serves as the basis for generating a score that reflects the user's typing accuracy. This scoring mechanism is integral in providing immediate and understandable feedback to users.
Moreover, the provision of feedback based on the calculated scores is a significant factor in the learning process. This feedback not only offers insights into the user's performance but also aids in identifying areas for improvement. Additionally, the adjustment of difficulty levels for subsequent typing tests is a strategic approach to challenge the users progressively, thereby enhancing their typing skills over time.
However, conventional systems and methods for evaluating typing accuracy and providing feedback have been fraught with limitations. One of the primary challenges lies in the lack of adaptability and personalization in the assessment process. Many existing solutions fail to adequately adjust the difficulty levels of typing tests in response to the user's performance, leading to either under-challenging or overwhelming the user. This lack of personalization can hinder the user's motivation and progress in typing proficiency.
Furthermore, the feedback provided by some systems may not be sufficiently detailed or actionable, leaving users uncertain about how to improve their performance. This gap in effective feedback mechanisms can significantly delay the learning process, as users struggle to identify and correct their typing inaccuracies.
In light of the above discussion, there exists an urgent need for solutions that overcome the problems associated with conventional systems and techniques for evaluating typing accuracy and providing feedback. Such solutions should offer enhanced adaptability and personalization in the assessment process, enabling the dynamic adjustment of difficulty levels based on the user's performance. Additionally, these solutions should provide detailed and actionable feedback, guiding users effectively in their journey towards typing proficiency.
Summary
The following presents a simplified summary of various aspects of this disclosure in order to provide a basic understanding of such aspects. This summary is not an extensive overview of all contemplated aspects, and is intended to neither identify key or critical elements nor delineate the scope of such aspects. Its purpose is to present some concepts of this disclosure in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that is presented later.
The following paragraphs provide additional support for the claims of the subject application.
In an aspect, the present disclosure provides a method and system for evaluating typing accuracy. A user interface for typing input is presented to users, enabling them to select a difficulty level for typing tests. Upon receiving the user's typed input, a Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence is calculated. A score is then generated based on this calculated distance, and feedback is provided to the user based on their score. The difficulty level for subsequent typing tests is adjusted to suit the user's performance.
Further, the Levenshtein distance metric quantifies the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the pre-determined correct sentence. Suggestions for improvement on the user's specific typing errors are included in the feedback provided. Additionally, after each typing session, a detailed analytical report is generated, which includes a history of the user's typing accuracy and speed over time. For enhanced adaptability, the difficulty level is adjusted dynamically within a typing session based on real-time analysis of the user's typing performance.
Moreover, the system comprises a user interface module configured to display a typing input interface, a difficulty selection module, an input reception module for receiving the user's typed input via a user input device, a Levenshtein distance calculation module, a scoring module, a feedback module, and a difficulty adjustment module. The Levenshtein distance calculation module is further configured to quantify the number of single-character edits required. The user interface hardware module includes a display screen configured to provide visual prompts and feedback. The system is also configured to store user profiles and track individual user progress over multiple sessions.
The approach ensures a personalized and adaptive learning experience, encouraging improvements in typing accuracy and speed through targeted feedback and the dynamic adjustment of difficulty levels.

Field of the Invention

The features and advantages of the present disclosure would be more clearly understood from the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
FIG. 1 illustrates a method (100) for evaluating typing accuracy, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure.
FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of a system (200) for evaluating typing accuracy, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure.
FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram of a process for enabling typing practice, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure.
Detailed Description
In the following detailed description of the invention, reference is made to the accompanying drawings that form a part hereof, and in which is shown, by way of illustration, specific embodiments in which the invention may be practiced. In the drawings, like numerals describe substantially similar components throughout the several views. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to claim those skilled in the art to practice the invention. Other embodiments may be utilized and structural, logical, and electrical changes may be made without departing from the scope of the present invention. The following detailed description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope of the present invention is defined only by the appended claims and equivalents thereof.
The use of the terms “a” and “an” and “the” and “at least one” and similar referents in the context of describing the invention (especially in the context of the following claims) are to be construed to cover both the singular and the plural, unless otherwise indicated herein or clearly contradicted by context. The use of the term “at least one” followed by a list of one or more items (for example, “at least one of A and B”) is to be construed to mean one item selected from the listed items (A or B) or any combination of two or more of the listed items (A and B), unless otherwise indicated herein or clearly contradicted by context. The terms “comprising,” “having,” “including,” and “containing” are to be construed as open-ended terms (i.e., meaning “including, but not limited to,”) unless otherwise noted. Recitation of ranges of values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range, unless otherwise indicated herein, and each separate value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein. All methods described herein can be performed in any suitable order unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context. The use of any and all examples, or exemplary language (e.g., “such as”) provided herein, is intended merely to better illuminate the invention and does not pose a limitation on the scope of the invention unless otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should be construed as indicating any non-claimed element as essential to the practice of the invention.
Pursuant to the "Detailed Description" section herein, whenever an element is explicitly associated with a specific numeral for the first time, such association shall be deemed consistent and applicable throughout the entirety of the "Detailed Description" section, unless otherwise expressly stated or contradicted by the context.
FIG. 1 illustrates a method (100) for evaluating typing accuracy, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. In the method (100) for evaluating typing accuracy, a user interface for typing input is presented to a user in step (102). This interface serves as the means through which users interact with the system, enabling them to input text as part of a typing test. The importance of a user-friendly interface is paramount, as it directly influences the user's ability to engage with the typing test effectively. Step (104), enables the user to select a difficulty level for typing tests. This feature allows users to customize their learning experience by choosing a level that matches their current typing proficiency. By providing a range of difficulty levels, the method (100) caters to users with varying typing skills, from beginners to advanced typists. In step (106), upon the user's selection, the user's typed input is received. The step (106) involves capturing every keystroke made by the user during the typing test. The accuracy and speed of the user's typed input are critical metrics for evaluating the user's typing performance.
A Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence is then calculated in step (108). The Levenshtein distance measures the minimum number of single-character edits (insertions, deletions, or substitutions) required to change one string into the other. This metric is utilized to assess the accuracy of the user's typed input relative to the correct sentence. In step (110), based on the calculated Levenshtein distance, a score is generated. This score quantifies the user's typing accuracy, providing a tangible metric that reflects the user's performance. The generation of a score based on the Levenshtein distance enables a standardized evaluation of typing accuracy across different tests and users. Feedback is provided to the user based on the score in step (112). This feedback includes insights into the user's typing accuracy and, optionally, suggestions for improvement. By providing immediate feedback, the method facilitates a learning loop, where users can understand their typing strengths and areas for improvement. Additionally, the difficulty level for a subsequent typing test is adjusted based on the user's performance in step (114). This adjustment is made to ensure that the typing tests remain challenging yet achievable, promoting continuous improvement in typing skills. The dynamic adjustment of difficulty levels is a key feature of the method (100), allowing for a personalized learning experience that adapts to the user's progress.
In an embodiment, the method (100) employs the Levenshtein distance metric specifically to quantify the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the pre-determined correct sentence. This embodiment emphasizes the use of the Levenshtein distance as a precise measure of typing accuracy, focusing on the minimum number of insertions, deletions, or substitutions needed to match the typed input with the correct sentence. By quantifying the discrepancy in terms of single-character edits, a detailed assessment of the user's typing accuracy is facilitated. This approach not only provides a nuanced understanding of typing errors but also aids in identifying specific areas where the user may require further practice. The precision of this metric allows for the generation of scores that reflect the user's typing proficiency with greater specificity, thereby enabling more tailored feedback. Moreover, by focusing on single-character edits, the method enhances the pedagogical value of the typing tests, as users can directly correlate their scores with specific types of errors, such as mistyped or omitted characters. This detailed assessment serves as a foundation for both the feedback provided to users and the dynamic adjustment of difficulty levels, ensuring that the typing tests are effectively tailored to the user's individual learning needs.
In another embodiment, the method (100) includes the provision of feedback that specifically incorporates suggestions for improvement tailored to the user's individual typing errors. This embodiment enriches the feedback mechanism by not only highlighting areas of typing inaccuracy but also offering actionable advice for enhancing typing skills. The inclusion of suggestions for improvement based on the user's specific typing errors introduces a personalized aspect to the learning process. By addressing the individual mistakes made by the user, the feedback becomes more relevant and effective, potentially accelerating the user's improvement in typing accuracy. This targeted feedback, grounded in the analysis of the user's performance, enables users to focus their practice on rectifying particular deficiencies, thus fostering a more efficient and goal-oriented learning experience. The provision of such personalized feedback underscores the method's commitment to adaptability and user-centricity, hallmarks of an advanced typing accuracy evaluation system.
In a further embodiment, the method (100) encompasses generating a detailed analytical report after each typing session. This report includes a comprehensive history of the user's typing accuracy and speed over time, offering a longitudinal perspective on the user's progress. By documenting and analyzing the user's performance across multiple sessions, the method provides users and educators with valuable insights into typing proficiency trends. This detailed analytical report serves as a crucial tool for tracking improvement, identifying persistent challenges, and tailoring future practice sessions to address specific needs. The inclusion of both accuracy and speed metrics in the report allows for a holistic assessment of typing skills, recognizing that proficiency entails both precision and efficiency. The capability to generate such a report signifies the method's advanced analytical framework, which not only assesses performance in individual sessions but also synthesizes data over time to paint a detailed picture of the user's typing journey.
In yet another embodiment, the method (100) dynamically adjusts the difficulty level within a typing session based on real-time analysis of the user's typing performance. This feature introduces an unparalleled level of adaptability to the typing test, allowing for immediate adjustments to the challenge level in response to the user's performance. By analyzing typing accuracy and speed in real-time, the method can identify when a user is finding the current difficulty level either too challenging or insufficiently stimulating. The dynamic adjustment mechanism then modifies the difficulty level accordingly, ensuring that the typing test remains optimally challenging throughout the session. This ongoing adaptability not only maintains user engagement by avoiding frustration or boredom but also promotes steady progress by continuously challenging the user just beyond their current proficiency level. This embodiment embodies the method's commitment to personalized and adaptive learning, offering a responsive and evolving typing test experience that optimally supports the user's development.
The term "system" as used throughout the present disclosure relates to an apparatus configured for evaluating typing accuracy. This system comprises multiple interconnected modules designed to offer a comprehensive assessment of a user's typing proficiency.
The term "user interface module" as used throughout the present disclosure relates to a component configured to display a typing input interface to a user. This module serves as the primary interface between the user and the system, enabling the presentation of textual prompts and the receipt of typing input. The effectiveness of the user interface module in facilitating an intuitive and user-friendly interaction significantly impacts the user's engagement and performance in typing tests.
The term "difficulty selection module" as used throughout the present disclosure refers to a component that allows the user to select a difficulty level for typing tests. This module provides users with the capability to customize their learning experience by choosing from various difficulty levels, thereby ensuring that the typing tests are aligned with their proficiency. The ability of the difficulty selection module to offer a range of difficulty levels caters to users at different stages of typing proficiency, from beginners to advanced typists.
The term "input reception module" as used throughout the present disclosure denotes a component responsible for receiving the user's typed input via a user input device. This module captures every keystroke made by the user during the typing test, serving as the foundation for assessing typing accuracy and speed. The precision and reliability of the input reception module are critical for accurately measuring the user's typing performance.
The term "Levenshtein distance calculation module" as used throughout the present disclosure pertains to a component designed for calculating a Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence. This module utilizes the Levenshtein distance metric to quantify typing accuracy by measuring the minimum number of single-character edits required to match the user's input with the correct sentence. The accuracy of the Levenshtein distance calculation module in determining typing discrepancies plays a vital role in generating a meaningful score.
The term "scoring module" as used throughout the present disclosure relates to a component for generating a score based on the calculated Levenshtein distance. This module translates the Levenshtein distance into a quantifiable score, reflecting the user's typing accuracy. The objectivity and clarity of the scoring mechanism are essential for providing users with a tangible assessment of their typing skills.
The term "feedback module" as used throughout the present disclosure refers to a component responsible for providing feedback to the user based on the score. This module delivers insights into the user's typing performance, including areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. The effectiveness of the feedback module in offering constructive and actionable feedback significantly influences the user's learning and improvement.
The term "difficulty adjustment module" as used throughout the present disclosure denotes a component for adjusting the difficulty level for subsequent typing tests based on the user's performance. This module ensures that the typing tests remain challenging and relevant by dynamically modifying the difficulty level in response to the user's progress. The adaptability of the difficulty adjustment module fosters a personalized learning environment that encourages continuous improvement in typing proficiency.
FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of a system (200) for evaluating typing accuracy, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. The system (200) includes a user interface module (202), a difficulty selection module (204), an input reception module (206), a Levenshtein distance calculation module (208), a scoring module (210), a feedback module (212), and a difficulty adjustment module (214). Each module is configured to perform specific tasks in the process of assessing typing accuracy. The user interface module (202) is configured to display a typing input interface to a user, wherein the typing input interface is designed for the user to input typed data. The difficulty selection module (204) enables selection of a difficulty level for typing tests by the user, offering various levels of challenges tailored to the user's abilities. The input reception module (206) is responsible for receiving the user's typed input via a user input device. Upon reception of the typed input, the Levenshtein distance calculation module (208) is engaged in calculating the Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence. This calculation module is further configured to quantify the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the correct sentence. The scoring module (210) generates a score based on the calculated Levenshtein distance, providing a quantitative measure of typing accuracy. Feedback based on the score is provided by the feedback module (212), which includes suggestions for improvement tailored to the user's specific typing errors. Finally, the difficulty adjustment module (214) is configured to adjust the difficulty level for subsequent typing tests based on the user's performance, ensuring a continuously adapted learning experience. This adjustment may be performed dynamically within a typing session based on real-time analysis of the user's typing performance.
In an embodiment, the system (200) for evaluating typing accuracy includes the Levenshtein distance calculation module (208), which is further configured to quantify the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the pre-determined correct sentence. This configuration enhances the precision of typing accuracy assessment by focusing on the specific edits necessary to correct the input. The capability of the Levenshtein distance calculation module (208) to perform this quantification allows for a detailed analysis of the user's typing errors, thereby facilitating a more nuanced understanding of typing proficiency. By measuring the minimum number of insertions, deletions, or substitutions needed, the module (208) provides a foundation for generating scores that accurately reflect the user's performance. This approach not only supports the generation of meaningful feedback but also aids in the personalized adjustment of difficulty levels for subsequent tests. The detailed quantification of typing inaccuracies enables the system (200) to tailor its responses and challenges to the user's specific needs, enhancing the efficacy and responsiveness of the typing accuracy evaluation process.
In another embodiment, the system (200) comprises a user interface module (202) that includes a display screen specifically configured to provide visual prompts and feedback to the user. This embodiment emphasizes the role of the display screen in facilitating an interactive and engaging typing experience. The display screen serves as the primary medium for presenting typing tests, instructions, and real-time feedback, making it integral to the user's interaction with the system (200). By providing visual prompts, the display screen aids in guiding the user through the typing tests, while the feedback displayed helps in informing the user about their typing accuracy and areas for improvement. The configuration of the display screen to support such functionalities underscores the system's commitment to creating a user-friendly and effective learning environment. The visual aspect of the feedback, coupled with the ability to present tailored typing challenges, significantly contributes to the user's motivation and progress in improving typing skills.
In a further embodiment, the system (200) is configured to store user profiles and track individual user progress over multiple sessions. This capability represents an advanced feature of the system (200), allowing for the personalized management of user data and the longitudinal analysis of typing performance. By maintaining user profiles, the system (200) enables users to resume their practice seamlessly across sessions and provides a basis for tracking improvements in typing accuracy and speed over time. The tracking of individual user progress is facilitated through the collection and analysis of performance data from each session, which is then associated with the respective user profile. This approach not only personalizes the user experience but also enhances the system's (200) ability to offer targeted feedback and adjust difficulty levels effectively. The storage and analysis of user progress data underscore the system's capabilities in supporting sustained learning and development in typing proficiency, making it a valuable tool for users seeking to enhance their typing skills systematically.
In an embodiment, the system of present disclosure utilizes the Levenshtein distance metric to assess typing accuracy at the sentence level, a shift from the traditional word-based metrics, and caters to all skill levels through dynamically adjusted difficulty settings based on user performance. The typing accuracy can be determined based on following formula:

𝑖=0
𝑛
.
Ai∗Ti
𝑇
;
where, n:= number of sentences to be typed (default set to 5)
Ai:= Accuracy for ith sentence
Ai= 1-(LDi/Li),
LDi:= Levenshtein Distance of ith sentence
Li := Character length of ith sentence
Ti:= Weight of each sentence in terms of time taken for ith sentence
T:= Total time taken to write N sentences

Users are presented with sentences across five difficulty levels—ranging from very easy to very hard—that integrate varying character types, including lower-case, upper-case, digits, and special characters. This setup enhances the realistic nature of typing scenarios but also supports comprehensive skill development by including accuracy and speed evaluations during typing sessions.
Users can be categorised based on their “typing speed” (in Words Per Minute WPM) as:
Below 20 WPM: Beginner
20 to 40 WPM: Average
40 to 60 WPM: Above Average
60 to 80 WPM: Proficient
80+ WPM: Expert
Overall Typing Score=(0.65*Typing Accuracy)+(0.35*Typing Speed)

As users progress, the system offers personalized feedback, recommends practice exercises tailored to their typing errors, and generates detailed analytics to track improvements. This approach helps users refine their typing skills and also adapts to their individual learning pace, enabling system effective tool for educational and recruitment applications.
In embodiment, the system provides objective measurements, enabling targeted improvements to improve users experience through consistent practice and personalized feedback, which boosts productivity and efficiency. Additionally, the interactive typing exercises strengthen hand-eye coordination by translating visual cues into precise keystrokes. The system supports typing evaluation across various difficulty levels, accommodating users with different skill sets and preferences. The system also provides personalized practice recommendations based on performance data and user feedback to further refine typing skills
FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram of a process for enabling typing practice, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. At the start, user is asked if they wish to practice typing. If they do, they proceed to refer to tutorials. After consulting tutorials, users take a practice test and then decide if they are ready for the actual test. In case user not wish to practice, or after deeming themselves ready post-practice, they select a difficulty level for the typing test. Upon completing the typing test, the system provides an analysis report along with recommendations for improvement. The user is then given the option to take another test. If they choose to take another test, the cycle of selecting a difficulty level and taking the test repeats, followed by receiving a report and recommendations.
Example embodiments herein have been described above with reference to block diagrams and flowchart illustrations of methods and apparatuses. It will be understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, respectively, can be implemented by various means including hardware, software, firmware, and a combination thereof. For example, in one embodiment, each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus create means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.
Throughout the present disclosure, the term ‘processing means’ or ‘microprocessor’ or ‘processor’ or ‘processors’ includes, but is not limited to, a general purpose processor (such as, for example, a complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, a reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor, a very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, a microprocessor implementing other types of instruction sets, or a microprocessor implementing a combination of types of instruction sets) or a specialized processor (such as, for example, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), or a network processor).
The term “non-transitory storage device” or “storage” or “memory,” as used herein relates to a random access memory, read only memory and variants thereof, in which a computer can store data or software for any duration.
Operations in accordance with a variety of aspects of the disclosure is described above would not have to be performed in the precise order described. Rather, various steps can be handled in reverse order or simultaneously or not at all.
While several implementations have been described and illustrated herein, a variety of other means and/or structures for performing the function and/or obtaining the results and/or one or more of the advantages described herein may be utilized, and each of such variations and/or modifications is deemed to be within the scope of the implementations described herein. More generally, all parameters, dimensions, materials, and configurations described herein are meant to be exemplary and that the actual parameters, dimensions, materials, and/or configurations will depend upon the specific application or applications for which the teachings is/are used. Those skilled in the art will recognize, or be able to ascertain using no more than routine experimentation, many equivalents to the specific implementations described herein. It is, therefore, to be understood that the foregoing implementations are presented by way of example only and that, within the scope of the appended claims and equivalents thereto, implementations may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described and claimed. Implementations of the present disclosure are directed to each individual feature, system, article, material, kit, and/or method described herein. In addition, any combination of two or more such features, systems, articles, materials, kits, and/or methods, if such features, systems, articles, materials, kits, and/or methods are not mutually inconsistent, is included within the scope of the present disclosure.

Claims

I/We Claims

A method (100) for evaluating a typing accuracy, the method (100) comprising:
presenting to a user a user interface for typing input;
allowing the user to select a difficulty level for typing tests;
receiving the user's typed input;
calculating a Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence;
generating a score based on the calculated Levenshtein distance;
providing feedback to the user based on the score; and
adjusting the difficulty level for a subsequent typing test.
The method (100) of claim 1, wherein the Levenshtein distance metric quantifies the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the pre-determined correct sentence.
The method (100) of claim 1, wherein the feedback includes suggestions for improvement to the user's specific typing errors.
The method (100) of claim 1, further comprising generating a detailed analytical report after each typing session, which includes a history of the user's typing accuracy and speed over time.
The method (100) of claim 1, wherein the difficulty level is adjusted dynamically within a typing session based on real-time analysis of the user's typing performance.
A system (200) for evaluating typing accuracy, the system comprising:
a user interface module (202) configured to display a typing input interface to a user;
a difficulty selection module (204) allowing the user to select a difficulty level for typing tests;
an input reception module (206) for receiving the user's typed input via a user input device;
a Levenshtein distance calculation module (208) for calculating a Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence;
a scoring module (210) for generating a score based on the calculated Levenshtein distance;
a feedback module (212) for providing feedback to the user based on the score; and
a difficulty adjustment module (214) for adjusting the difficulty level for subsequent typing tests based on the user's performance.
The system (200) of claim 1, wherein the Levenshtein distance calculation module (208) is further configured to quantify the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the pre-determined correct sentence.
The system (200) of claim 1, wherein the user interface hardware module (202) comprises a display screen configured to provide visual prompts and feedback to the user.
The system (200) of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to store user profiles and track individual user progress over multiple sessions.

METHOD FOR EVALUATING TYPING ACCURACY WITH ADAPTIVE DIFFICULTY LEVELS

The present disclosure provides a method for evaluating typing accuracy. A user interface for typing input is presented to a user. The user is enabled to select a difficulty level for typing tests. User's typed input is received. A Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence is calculated. Based on the calculated Levenshtein distance, a score is generated. Feedback is provided to the user based on the score. The difficulty level for a subsequent typing test is adjusted.
, Claims:I/We Claims

A method (100) for evaluating a typing accuracy, the method (100) comprising:
presenting to a user a user interface for typing input;
allowing the user to select a difficulty level for typing tests;
receiving the user's typed input;
calculating a Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence;
generating a score based on the calculated Levenshtein distance;
providing feedback to the user based on the score; and
adjusting the difficulty level for a subsequent typing test.
The method (100) of claim 1, wherein the Levenshtein distance metric quantifies the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the pre-determined correct sentence.
The method (100) of claim 1, wherein the feedback includes suggestions for improvement to the user's specific typing errors.
The method (100) of claim 1, further comprising generating a detailed analytical report after each typing session, which includes a history of the user's typing accuracy and speed over time.
The method (100) of claim 1, wherein the difficulty level is adjusted dynamically within a typing session based on real-time analysis of the user's typing performance.
A system (200) for evaluating typing accuracy, the system comprising:
a user interface module (202) configured to display a typing input interface to a user;
a difficulty selection module (204) allowing the user to select a difficulty level for typing tests;
an input reception module (206) for receiving the user's typed input via a user input device;
a Levenshtein distance calculation module (208) for calculating a Levenshtein distance between the user's typed input and a pre-determined correct sentence;
a scoring module (210) for generating a score based on the calculated Levenshtein distance;
a feedback module (212) for providing feedback to the user based on the score; and
a difficulty adjustment module (214) for adjusting the difficulty level for subsequent typing tests based on the user's performance.
The system (200) of claim 1, wherein the Levenshtein distance calculation module (208) is further configured to quantify the number of single-character edits required to change the user's typed input into the pre-determined correct sentence.
The system (200) of claim 1, wherein the user interface hardware module (202) comprises a display screen configured to provide visual prompts and feedback to the user.
The system (200) of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to store user profiles and track individual user progress over multiple sessions.

METHOD FOR EVALUATING TYPING ACCURACY WITH ADAPTIVE DIFFICULTY LEVELS