On 8/8/2012 3:42 AM, Gerrit Schünemann wrote:
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.
I like spell-check because I make lots of typos not because I don't know
how to spell. Just showing me the misspelled word is sufficient. Of
course even that doesn't prevent all mistakes. Many times my typos
result in a different word but not a misspelled word.
--
Dale Erwin
Lurigancho, Lima 15 PERU
http://leather.casaerwin.org
http://neapolitan.casaerwin.org
=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.0.0.909, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20340)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
