Hi Anton. You are opening a delightful discussion. The obvious question is: "Correct" by what standards? Which standards should we strive for? Is a more "human" software interface one that understands me better (including my ideosyncracies, typical misspellings, and "personal" choice of words), or should we strive for some objective standard of correctness and have the software penalize anyone, who does not adhere to that standard?
I think that this is an interesting design decision for any human-software interface that is calculated to interface more comfortably with its users. Any ideas? Elan Anton Rolls wrote: >What if what you say is incorrect? >(over and over again.) Then Q helps you >to fool yourself. >Does the engine assume that the human as >teacher always knows what is correct? > >Anton. > > > >>if repetitive patterns occurs, it should ask if a specific item >>is equivalent to something else... so that you can interchange >>its expected word and yours without ill effect in any of its >>language. an example is that if you always say open instead of >>load, eventually it could catch this and ask you if open is >>equivalent to load... >> >>If Q is supposed to be all about helping in a natural manner, >>maybe it should learn to help its user help himself. ;-) >> >>Maybe some of this is already part of Q, but I'm just throwing my >>ideas on the wall as they occur to me... >> >>HTH in any way! >> >>Q idea is nice. >> >>-MAx >> >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
