Hi. > My thought is that underlining is sufficient. An article in the > Sunday NY Times (5 August) entitled "Auto Crrect Ths" examines > reasons that this would be a bad idea. If the writer is unsure of > the word or its spelling, he can always go to Artha and look it > up. (Artha offers various suggestions if the word is misspelled.)
If I may quote the article: "One more thing to worry about: the better Autocorrect gets, the more we will come to rely on it. It’s happening already. People who yesterday unlearned arithmetic will soon forget how to spell. One by one we are outsourcing our mental functions to the global prosthetic brain. " That is just what I mean to say. A word is underlined because it's misspelled. You right click on it and accept the suggestion. And you learn next to nothing. If you just had a marker telling you, where the mistake was made, that would be different. While it is true that you can look it up using Artha (not to think about usability), you can also look it up in the suggestions. But you still have to check letter by letter at which point you did a mistake, which is quite time consuming on long words. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
