You should write directly to Kurzweil with your comments and suggestions.
I know I found an E-mail address to write to for just that purpose. I went
to the web site to try to find it just now, but I didn't. I still think it
can be found somewhere on there page, though. You could probably write to
kurzweil1000support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
and ask them to either forward it if it wasn't sent to the correct address
or to tell you the E-mail address they would like you to use.
I don't know if what you suggest would be easy to implement, especially
since the spell checker seems to be something not entirely created by KES
for Kurzweil, but it would be fantastic if the idea could be used. I
especially would like a feature to put word fragments together, since I
find those as well as compound words the spellchecker has never heard of,
to be the most common errors.
Sarah Van Oosterwijck
Assistive Technology Trainer
http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
----- Original Message -----
From: "E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 6:31 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] we borrow the earth
I am validating this fascinating book. It started out with 96% of the words spelled correctly. I have it up to just under 99% with a lot of assistance from rank spelling.
I have a suggestion for a rank spelling feature or add on. When I notice a pattern in words where a whole group are listed as rank spelling errors I could input a letter substitution to the utility and try out the results in a "read word in context box" before finally accepting the letter substitution. In this book v is often scanned as u resulting in inuite uisit uent preuent auailable and so on. Use of a tool such as this might also include the ability to bring together adjacent miss-recognized word fragments as in "part icularly". Again we would want a context checker box before final acceptance of the letter substitutions or space removal for word fragments.
Also, we really should put a floor on what is submittable or put a strange responsibility on the step 2 validators. We are getting back to what to do with truly poorly scanned stuff here. Could there be some kind of screening before all scans are put on the step 1 page or is that just too politically incorrect?
E.
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/2005
