When I tweeted Prizmo about bad results on the iPhone, they told me to send them the results and a picture so they could investigate. If you could, would you please send them the text Abbyy and Prizmo gave you, plus a raw scan of the page (before OCR)? They really try, and I say that because of the incredible job they did implementing a feature on the iPhone that has vo guide you into the perfect position from where to take the picture. They didn't have to do that, but they did, so they obviously care about accessibility a great deal. Thanks in advance if you decide to send them the three pieces of data. On Jun 9, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Anne Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Jürgen, > > I've got the latest version of Prizmo. I had to delete the version that was > on my MBA as it wouldn't work any more and download the latest version. I > bought it quite a while back and, although it was usable then, it was messy. > I still think it's messy compared with ABBYY FineReader which I use on a > regular basis. I also use VueScan to capture multiple images before handing > over the file to FineReader if I have more than a couple of pages to scan. > > I really think Prizmo is messy. Oh, and the unlabelled buttons, perhaps you > have VoiceOver set to read the help tags - I don't. > > I've just done a direct comparison between Prizmo and FineReader on a double > page of a book. Prizmo produced no readable text, just a few odd letters and > symbols. I'm pasting the results below my Signature. > > Cheers, > > Anne > > Prizmo > 0 > > '~' I:I u > ~o .~o > 0 ~ 0 i > ~ > > 0 0 ~ ~ > /_ -~ > > ,,-, 0 N > 71~ i!i ~ > > I:~ > > 0 > > 0 > 0 "" > I=~ "1=1 > > 0 ~ > > 0 t~ > 0 > > : > > 0 : : U > > ,~0 IZI ~ ' : 0 ~ : : : > ~ : ~ 0 > > > > > > 0 > > > ABBYY FineReader > > ii i „/ > > I iiitned to CO,, .'ind walor via tho consumptiono! <>xy<|nn, tin:; indued > method (called indirect calorimetry) effectively measures a person's > total energy consumption. > In addition, the ratios of C02 produced relative to oxygen consumed > are different for these three major nutrients. This ratio, the volume of > C02 output divided by oxygen intake (VC02/V02) is 1.0 for carbohy- > drates, 0.70 for fat (triglyceride), and about 0.85 for protein. This ra- > tio is called the respiratory quotient (if corrected for protein oxidation) > or respiratory exchange ratio if we just use the raw number, ignoring > protein metabolism. But because protein burns at 0.85, right in the > middle, correcting for it tends to change the results little if at all. Thus > you'll often see RQ and RER used interchangeably. > A useful rule of thumb to remember is that a liter of oxygen consumed > produces about 5 kcal of metabolic energy. So a person sitting quietly > reading this chapter with an energy expenditure of 1 kcal/min is con- > suming about 200 cc of elemental oxygen per minute (1 liter t5). If > he or she had a bagel and orange juice for breakfast, most fuel being > burned is glucose, so the RQ would be -1 and C02 production would > be about the same - 200 cc/min. However, if that person were follow- > ing a very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet, 02 consumption would be > the same but C02 production would be a lot less, about 140 cc/min > (i.e., an RQ of 0.70 is indicative of virtually pure fat oxidation). > Weight, Weight Variation, and BMI > The other set of assessment tools deserving of comment are those used to > determine weight and body composition. Although modern scales are gen- > erally consistent and even pretty accurate, they suffer from not being able to > differentiate water from muscle from fat. This is particularly important for > the individual trying to chart her/his course on a weight loss diet because > humans do not regulate their body water content precisely. So if a 70 kg > adult typically contains an average of 42 liters of water, over the course of > a > 72 > , I In,n,in I Ml i'-: II, mill I in I PiirtltlOtllUR > ,i.iv that pet lon'i body does not care (fit contains 41 liters .is opposed > to 43 > liters <>i water, Above 4(liters, the kidneys speed their function and clear > the excess fluid, whereas below 11 liters, thirst prompts us to increase our > water intake. The result is that most people's weight varies randomly across > .i range equivalent to 2 liters of water - about 4 pounds. > When humans cut back in calories, they tend to lose weight quickly at > first. Some of this is water weight due to reduced glycogen reserves (the > body stores 3-4 grams of water along with each gram of glycogen). But > then if all subsequent weight loss comes from fat, and a 500 kcal per day > deficit results in a pound per week rate of loss (assuming a pound of adi- > pose tissue contains 3500 kcal), this weight variability within a 4 pound > range can lead to a great deal of frustration and misunderstanding for the > individual. This 4 pound range in weight variability could completely > mask four weeks of excellent diet adherence at 1 pound per week of body > fat loss. And any clinician who has worked with dieting subjects has seen > individuals who are clearly sticking to much more stringent diets plateau > for up to 2 weeks and then abruptly show a 5 lb weight loss. Obviously, > this can be explained by the unpredictable shifts in body water content. > Bottom line: the standard scale is a lousy short-term tool for monitoring > your diet progress (or somebody else's diet adherence). > A relatively recent tool is the scale or device that measures weight as well > as the person's electrical impedance. It is tempting to think that we can > be accurately informed about total weight and total body fat content in a > single measure. While these devices are useful for assessing changes in > the average body composition when a large group of subjects are studied, > the repetition variability for a given subject under differing conditions of > temperature, hydration, and even emotional stress make it questionable > for individuals as a clinical tool. > Summary > Adults can vary tremendously in body composition, ranging from 5% > body fat at one extreme to 50% at the other. Lean body mass (protein > 73 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > Have a great day, Alex (msg sent from Mac Mini) [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
