Mailing-List: contact ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:50:54 -0400
From: Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Spell checker underlining
In-reply-to: <50211B7F.3050806@web.de>
To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org
Message-id: <5021557E.1080902@optonline.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
References: <50211B7F.3050806@web.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120508
 Thunderbird/12.0.1

On 08/07/2012 09:43 AM, Gerrit Sch�nemann wrote:
> Hi,
> Whilst writing a text today, making a lot of typos, I realized that an
> update for the underlining functionality would be a good idea:
>
> It would be a nice feature if the misspelled word wasn't just
> underlined, but the difference to the nearest word from the dictionary
> was marked (maybe different colour underlining or different style).
>
> What is the general thought on that?
>
> regards
> GS
>
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.)

The Times article is available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/auto-correct-this.html?pagewanted=all

--doug


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ooo-users-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org