Spell checkers
Oct. 16th, 2008 12:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Would it be worth having an "unlikely" mark for a spelling checker? For those occasions when it's entirely possible you did mean "licens (n, ceremonial greek fireplace)"[1], but it's overwhelmingly more likely you meant the common word "license"?
It would have to be visually represented as not requiring you to get rid of it, but merely to draw your attention to it, if that's possible. On the other hand, you could argue that's what spelling checkers ought to do anyway, although they are not normally treated like that. At least, "not in dictionary" is a clear judgement, even if the writing is correct (grammar "checkers" results really are all "suggested").
Come to think of it, maybe there's an uncomfortable parallel with compiler warnings?
[1] Warning, not an actual definition.
[2] I think perhaps the "one-liner" tag, as misleading as it has become, represents the nearest I ever come to a single contained thought, rather than a fifteen interrelated ones.
It would have to be visually represented as not requiring you to get rid of it, but merely to draw your attention to it, if that's possible. On the other hand, you could argue that's what spelling checkers ought to do anyway, although they are not normally treated like that. At least, "not in dictionary" is a clear judgement, even if the writing is correct (grammar "checkers" results really are all "suggested").
Come to think of it, maybe there's an uncomfortable parallel with compiler warnings?
[1] Warning, not an actual definition.
[2] I think perhaps the "one-liner" tag, as misleading as it has become, represents the nearest I ever come to a single contained thought, rather than a fifteen interrelated ones.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 11:41 am (UTC)The biggest problem is when you type one word but meant another where both possibilities are pretty much equally likely (e.g. 'kind' and 'king' - I think I'm incapable of typing 'kind regards' without messing it up) - I think that's more common for me that typing a very uncommon word when I was intending to type a perfectly common one.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 11:46 am (UTC)I think I'm incapable of typing 'kind regards' without messing it up
If one had the oomph to investigate it, the checker could -- and probably does -- base the decision on nearby words. Although that would have to be a "maybe", since it's always possible you did mean "king regards" as part of a longer sentence :)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 11:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:10 pm (UTC)"Oh, she's away in a manager"
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 01:00 pm (UTC)"Where's the secretary gone?"
"Oh, he's away in a manager"
would have been better! :-)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:15 pm (UTC)Although even if not you could have the option to move the words to the main dictionary (or equivalent), which wouldn't be worse than a spell checker which left them out completely would be.
I'm sure big-name spell-checkers do have context-dependent things (or even just different custom dictionaries for different users), so you can have a "writing fantasy fic" dictionary and a "writing cv dictionary".
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:12 pm (UTC)Very useful :)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 12:16 pm (UTC)