🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9997@claris.com> krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson) writes:
#>I must have missed the original post.  Time to defend the MWII spell checker.

And I must have missed previous responses to my post, which
wasn't the original one but probably second. First, a
clarification, I mainly use WriteNow 2.0 and don't have
recent versions of MacWrite, mostly because we can't find
our original program disk to get it updated.

#>From article <13120@paris.ics.uci.edu>, by milne@ics.uci.edu (Alastair Milne):
#>>    The spelling checker built into WriteNow version 1 does all but the last 2
#>>    of these things (I haven't tried version 2 yet):
#>
#>WriteNow 2.0 has the same spelling checker interface as 1.0, but I think it
#>may be a bit faster.
#>
#>>>Speed: Nobody wants to wait around while the speller is doing its thing.
#>>     If you were using a Z80 machine before, you'd like the speed in WriteNow.
#>>     And it's faster than Word 3.02's, too.

What I was really saying is that, aside from its initial pass, I
could spell check a document quicker on my Kaypro II than I do
on my Mac II, not because of the electronics but because of the
design of the software.

#>MWII is fast, too.  Word is like waiting to the pyramids to crumble, in my, uh,
#>humble opinion.
#>
#>More details on this later.
#>
#>>>Context Display: seeing the word in its context.
#>>     WriteNow video-inverts the word right in the document -- though to be
#>>     fair I believe this is standard practise for built-in checkers.
#>
#>Ditto.  In addition, there is a 'context box' which can be called up at
#>the bottom of the dialog.  The misspelled word shows up underlined in the
#>middle of one line of text.  Since the dialog is movable (as is WriteNow's),
#>you can look to see exactly where the word is, anyway.

Perhaps it's because I'm not a mouse-lover when I'm in a word
processing program, but I found my old CP/M spelling checker
superior because I could get it to implement all my choices
by typing a single character without removing my hands from
the keyboard. The number of choices isn't so great that one
needs a mouse, and if you have to type in a replacement
spelling you don't have to reposition your hands. The point
is that when you are in a spelling mode/program, you want
to get through it and out of it as quickly as possible.

#>>>Easy lookup for suggested replacement: (i.e., not just one
#>>>  choice but several words in the immediate vicinity)
#>>     WriteNow's checker window provides a GUESS button.  Clicking it causes 
#>>     all the similar words it can find to appear AS BUTTONS themselves.
#>>     Just click the word you want.  Or click FORGET.  Or IGNORE.
#>
#>MWII doesn't wait for you to click on a button.  I looks up similar words in
#>the background.  The process is interruptible, so if you know the word is
#>right, you can immediately click on "Learn" or "Skip" and the lookup will be
#>aborted.
#>
#>The suggestion list WriteNow gives you is a series of buttons.  MacWrite II 
#>gives you a scrolling list (like in the Open/Save dialogs) and a text-edit
#>field.  You can type in the correct spelling, double-click on the correct
#>suggestion (the first click copies the suggestion to the edit box), or use
#>the keyboard (command-1 for the first suggestion, command-2 for the second,
#>and so on up to the sixth).

That's more like what I'd like to have except that I'd like to be
able to type numbers or letters to implement my choices than to
have to click the squeaky mouse. I usually like the mouse when I'm
drawing or desktop publishing, but in general I find that it is
overused in some Mac software.

#>>>Ease in adding word to main dictionary: Yes, it used to be
#>>>  fairly easy to add to the main dictionary rather than
#>>>  creating alternate dictionaries.
#>>     Click the LEARN button in the checker's window.  I've found this a very
#>>     quick way to add plurals and possessives to the dictionary.
#>
#>Hmmm.  We don't do this one.  You actually have to install a user dictionary
#>(simple enough -- invoke the "Install Dictionaries" command, and click "New"),
#>but the installation can be made automatic (instructions in the manual).
#>
#>There's a "Learn" button in MWII's spell checker dialog, also.  It adds the
#>word to the current user dictionary.
#>
#>Also, our checker is smart enough to detect plurals and possessives.
#>
#>>>Ability to mark words found by speller to locate them
#>>>  in an editor: sometimes faster.
#>>    Well, it doesn't attach anything to the word that would help you find it
#>>    later -- but since it's work directly in the document anyway, and has in
#>>    fact already found the location -- do you really need this?  The checker
#>>    is a modeless dialogue, so you can alternate between it and the document
#>>    with no difficulty.

I've found it very cumbersome to alternate back and forth between
the speller box and the text: too many keys to type or mouse
clicks.

#>Once again, ditto.  The misspelled word is highlit right there in the text;
#>no need to go back and find it later.
#>
#>One minor quibble.  While I find our spelling checker much better at most 
#>things than WriteNow's, one property annoys me: our dialog is not modeless,
#>but merely movable.  You have to hit "Cancel" to get back to the document.
#>I think this is due to a difference in design strategy: we spell-check the
#>entire document when you bring up the dialog, and then run through the list
#>of misspellings interactively; whereas, WriteNow find the next misspelled
#>word after the current insertion point/selection.
#>
#>So in order to go back and forth between the dialog and the document, you
#>have to close the dialog and bring it up again (rebuilding the list of
#>misspelled words in the process).
#>
#>This difference in philosophy also affects the speed.  WriteNow is faster at
#>finding the FIRST misspelled word, but MWII is *much* faster at "finding" the
#>second one.
#> 
#>>>Ability to back up: Sometimes you change your mind on how to
#>>>spell something, such as a transliterated name (Qaddafi, Kadaffi,
#>>>Qadhafi--intifada, intifadah) or a word with more than one correct
#>>>spelling (modeling, modelling).
#>>     Since WriteNow's checker always advances from the current cursor
#>>     position, and the dialogue is modeless, you only need to move up to
#>>     the top (or in fact to anywhere you want) and click in the text.
#>>     The check will continue from there.
#>> 
#>>     Your only problem here is that if you've told it to ignore Qaddafi
#>>     (because you consider it correct, but don't actually want it in the main
#>>     dictionary) it will continue to ignore it, rather than landing on it for
#>>     changes.
#>
#>See the previous discussion about modelessness.  MWII doesn't remember which
#>sections of the text have been checked (as WriteNow does), so you don't have
#>the problem of the checker ignoring ytour word when it shouldn't.

The key point the respondents have missed is that there are
usually ways to do what my CP/M spell checker did. But whereas
it performed these acts quickly, usually by typing a single
character, all the Mac programs I've used require a sequence
of several operations, either with control-character or mouse
clicks or both. The fact that a task can be accomplished isn't
saying much if the user has to do three or four times as many
operations to get it done. Perhaps this is because my old spell
checker was dedicated; all you could do was spell check when
you were in it. As a result, it knew that the possible operations
it might have to carry out were quite limited and did them with
very simple commands and very efficiently. Because WriteNow,
and presumably MW II, too, are also preserving the option of
doing many other tasks at any time at the whim of the user,
the task of spell checking has become more onerous. That's
why I suggested putting an optimal spell checker in a desk
accessory, though it could also be integrated into a word
processor. The advantage of a desk accessory is that it
could be used with any word processing program instead
of having a different speller for each program one uses;
I have three for example.
#>I should point out one other feature we have that WriteNow doesn't.  When
#>you find a misspelled word and offer a replacement, we replace ALL instances
#>of that misspelled word.  So if you changed your mind about "Qadaffi", you
#>could change every instance of it in one swell foop.
#>
#>It would be nice if you could turn this feature off (grrr...), but you can't.
#>Yet.
#>
#>(Of course, you can do that with Find/Change, too, in both programs.)

Again, of course you can do it. But not, I assume, by typing a
single character to back up to the previous spell checking site,
previously flagged word, whatever. From your description of how
MW II's checker works, however, I'd assume that it could back
up--since it does an initial global spell check--if it was
desired to add such an option. The difference between us is
that you are talking about features and I am talking about use.
I've found that sometimes it is easier or at least more intuitive
to back up, see what spelling was chosen, think it over, etc. If
I can do that by hitting a single key, I'm more likely to use
it than if I have to go through several operations to get to
the same place.

I guess my main complaint is one I've voiced in this discussion
group at least once before. I'm a programming type who comes to
the Mac from mainframes, CP/M, UNIX, and, fortunately, very short
experience with DOS. Some of the software I use on the Mac, I find
cumbersome to use because when I want to type a simple command
because I know exactly what I want to do, I can't. I maintain
that the gap between the ordinary Mac user interface and the
Mac programming interface is much too broad, that the lowest
common denominator is too low.

It's fine to introduce new users to a very easy-to-use interface,
but what I'd appreciate in most of the software I use, is the
option of using a more advanced means of interaction which
does require that the user remember some commands without
going all the way into a Mac programming environment.

Examples:

In draw programs, I spend much too much time getting lines
to precisely intersect with my mouse. Wouldn't it be great
to be able to click into a command mode in which I instructed
the program to generate such an intersection? (Extend line
A until it just intersects with line B) That's an example
of what I mean by overuse of the mouse.

In word processors, I spend too much time dragging to get
just the text I need. I'd prefer to have an option of
defining a text block with commands rather than the mouse.
Sometimes I have to click the mouse three or four times
to get it exactly where I want it to be, for instance for
an insertion point. I'd like to have an option to go into
a command mode where something like vi commands worked.

These are just a couple of examples. I could spend all
day and into next week dreaming up improvements in the
software I use every day. But I see the root problem
as the underlying design of the Mac interface and it's
rather rigid limitations on what I, as a user, can do.

Steve Goldfield