[Scribus] Spell checking

Louis Desjardins louis.desjardins
Sun May 20 04:58:26 CEST 2007

2007/5/19, Christoph Sch?fer <christoph-schaefer at gmx.de
> Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2007 15:46 schrieb Louis Desjardins:
> >
> > Right. From a production point of view, having such a flag would be
> great.
> > Case: the Preflight raises a flag on a text, telling it discovered n
> > errors. This means that the wrong text may have been imported (not the
> > final one). Depending on the workflow, the user can turn to the
> proofreader
> > or do the job by himself. The flagged text can be corrected withing
> Scribus
> > or, if it's really bad, put back in the hands of the proofreader and
> > re-imported into Scribus once the job is done.
> I don't think this is great idea. There will always be words the spell
> checker
> will identify as misspelled, while they aren't (think about foreign
> words).
> If a spellchecker would be part of the prefilght verifier, the latter
> wouldn't stop popping up without any reason.

No! No! I am not saying that only "one" (or even a few) badly spelled word
or one flagged word would tell that this text is the wrong version. This is
a human call, made upon some valuable information. It has to be checked over
by other means to determine precisely whether there is an issue or not with
the text, of course. Exactly like, for instance, the text overflow flag can
? or not ? show a real issue. Sometimes it's only a Return left over with no
effect on the layout or no text after, so no issue.

I say this is a very good flag in some situation and as a production team
working everyday with external files coming from clients that are asked to
send "final text" and not drafts or unproofread text, I would ask my people
to check that option and use it for each and every job coming into our
office knowing too well in what nightmare can a bad text ? no matter who the
fault is... ? bring production into. Just like we do all the time...

So yes, I do think it is a *great* idea and I wish we implement this
whenever possible. It will prove to be useful in so many cases! Oh! and if
it is not useful for particular cases or production workflow, you simply
don't turn it on!

We use a damn good spellchecker exactly for that reason, within a well-known
DTP app, *everyday* and this proves to be part of a well-working and bullet
proof workflow. It is a third party app, btw. Our clients are thankful when
we tell them the text they sent us might not be the final version or still
needs to be proofread...


> > The use of a spellchecker should not mislead users and make them think a
> > piece of software could replace a proofreader... ;) To me, a proper
> > workflow means the texts are read, revised and proofread before they are
> > put in the layout. Everything fits tightly in a layout. A single word
> (even
> > a single glyph) added can change many things.
> Exactly!
> >
> > Louis
> Christoph

Louis Desjardins
Organisateur / Organiser
Libre Graphics Meeting 2007 - Montr?al
+1 514 934 1353 HAE / EDT GMT -4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20070520/85ab42ed/attachment.html 

More information about the scribus mailing list