Not that I don't agree with your sentiment but when one is dealing with 400 page, 100,000 word documents, errors will be made and need to be addressed. Unfortunately, editors and reviewers are not willing to make corrections they believe should be addressed prior to submission. Just because I have asked for a programme recommendation to assist in proofing my rather large documents, doesn't mean that I am illiterate or have no understanding of grammatical rules and conventions. Your comments illustrate that you have little to know experience in working with large manuscripts. This work is very different to a 10 page essay.
-----Original Message----- From: Talk [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Kingston via Talk Sent: Friday, 18 September 2015 1:41 AM To: Diana Kube <[email protected]>; Window-Eyes Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Professional level robust Punctuation/grammar/proofing tools that work with Window-Eyes. Hi Diana, I don't at all mean to sound arrogant. But in my opinion the best thing to do for yourself is learn how to do it right yourself. No program is going to be perfect. And editors don't mind making minor corrections. That's their job. Also, part of it is simply their personal preference or that of the publication. When it comes to punctuation there isn't a set of rules carved in stone for the English language. And that is what a program works best with. Editors and writers will always disagree over things like the use of semicolons instead of separate sentences, too many or too few commas or clauses, the latter of which may or may not also involve semicolons. Then there's the timeless debate over the serial comma, which is also referred to as the Oxford or Harvard comma. I have no idea what a program would do with that. Do you know the difference between a parenthetical statement enclosed in parentheses and one enclosed in em dashes? No program can. One consensus among editors is a raw hatred for the exclamation mark. Why this is is a mystery. But it's been preached from the bully pulpit for as long as I can remember. So I suppose a program could simply blacklist the exclamation mark. Then again, under just the right circumstances it is just the right mark for the occasion. Still, whether the editor agrees or not is a roll of the dice every time. So it's a combination of developing your own style and knowing that of the publication you're submitting to, because, as I said, they're not all hard and fast rules. I say the publication rather than the editor because often it's the publication's rules the editor wants you to adhere to, which aren't necessarily one and the same. Professional publications typically desire consistency throughout. So it may be more the publications rules you and the editor are working toward rather than either of your own personal preferences. Academia is pretty well set but there's still wiggle room even there. "professional" is an open field on what is right or wrong depending on the particular genre or sub-genre. And again, there's the matter of the editor's/publication's preference. No reasonable editor is going to have a problem with preferential edits. They know they're forcing their style on your writing. These are the cases wherein you simply have to learn and write to that predefined ideal. When you say "Word misses a high percentage of unusual errors including punctuation with narrated and quoted text in the same sentence," I read that as pretty much everything. If you meant something more specific please feel free to elaborate. Good luck, Tom On 9/17/2015 7:05 AM, Diana Kube via Talk wrote: > The default spell/grammar check that comes with word is not robust enough > for large, professional or academic manuscripts. 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/tom.kingston%4 0charter.net. > 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
