Thanks David, I too have been an adaptive tech consultant in a previous incarnation but am unaware of settings that increase the robustness of word enough for the type of evaluation the reviewers and editors are looking for. If you have any ideas of what I can look at I am open to any and all suggestions.
-----Original Message----- From: Talk [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Goldfield via Talk Sent: Thursday, 17 September 2015 9:18 PM To: Greg Daniel <[email protected]>; Window-Eyes Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Professional level robust Punctuation/grammar/proofing tools that work with Window-Eyes. I admit that I should probably know more about this but I believe that Word's grammar checker has some options to adjust the checking to account for different styles. Have you tried tweeking any of these settings? David Goldfield, Assistive Technology Specialist Feel free to visit my Web site www.davidgoldfield.info On 9/17/2015 7:13 AM, Greg Daniel via Talk wrote: > Have you asked the reviewers and editors who are pointing out the > errors? While this doesn't answer your Window-Eyes-related question, > it may give you ideas on what the professionals use. > > Greg > At 07:05 AM 9/17/2015, you wrote: >> The default spell/grammar check that comes with word is not robust >> enough >> for large, professional or academic manuscripts. Word misses a high >> percentage of unusual errors including punctuation with narrated and >> quoted >> text in the same sentence. Is anyone aware of a high quality, >> professional >> level tool that works effectively with Window-Eyes? >> >> >> >> I have tried both "Grammarly" and "Ginger" but although they work >> well for >> my sighted husband, they are not effective using Window-Eyes. I am >> getting a >> lot of negative comments regarding errors in manuscripts that >> reviewers and >> editors believe should be addressed prior to submission. Any >> suggestions?? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the >> author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared. >> >> For membership options, visit >> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/gdaniel%40colu mbus.rr.com. >> For subscription options, visit >> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com >> List archives can be found at >> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com > _______________________________________________ > Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the > author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared. > > For membership options, visit > http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/david.goldfiel d%40outlook.com. > For subscription options, visit > http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com > List archives can be found at > http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com _______________________________________________ Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared. For membership options, visit http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/kube%40netspac e.net.au. For subscription options, visit http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com List archives can be found at http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com _______________________________________________ Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared. For membership options, visit http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com. For subscription options, visit http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com List archives can be found at http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
