[scribus] 1.3.5 Windows spelling checker ?

[John Beardmore]

Louis Desjardins wrote:
> 2008/8/20 Gregory Pittman <gpittman at iglou.com>
>> Gregory Pittman wrote:
>>> John Beardmore wrote:

Taking your points out of order...

 > I don't know if I made the point clear... or clearer...
 >Please let me know.

No.


>>>> I'm playing with the 1.3.5 windows svn and was hoping to be able to use
>>>> the spelling checker. Is it implemented yet, or do I need to install other
>>>> stuff or something ?
>>>>
>>> There is a spell checker in 1.3.5 (Aspell).
>>>
>>> http://wiki.scribus.net/index.php/1.3.x_Roadmap#1.3.5_.3C--_We_are_now_here
>>>
>>> I have to say I haven't built 1.3.5svn with it enabled, so I don't know
>>> how it's invoked (maybe the Context menu?).
>>>
>>> On top of that, I don't know if it is incorporated into the 1.3.5svn
>>> Windows build that you can download.
>>>
>> I've been trying to get it to work, but perhaps with other ongoing problems
>> with Scribus, right now it's not usable -- I get a Signal #11 crash.
>>
>> What you do is select a frame then press F7 or Item > Spell Checker, and
>> some windows pop up. Could get that far only with an empty frame, then it
>> crashed anyway.
>>
> 
> I am sorry to enter late in the discussion. I am not responding here to
> Greg's post. But I think it is important to have a general overview of the
> Spell Checking issue as it arises from time to time on this list.
> 
> We have to wonder if a Spell Checker belongs or not in the DTP world,

:)   You may have to wonder.  I can't spell !


> and
> especially in Open Source where it is obvious that people have a real choice
> of picking the application that is just good for a given task. They don't
> have to pay extra bucks to get a WP that has all those tools at hand... We
> seem to often forget that reality.

My reality is that having to use WP just to get access to spelling 
checks sucks.


>>From the world I come from, a spell checker at this stage of the workflow is
> close to useless. It's not the right time, it's not the right people, it's
> too late in the process.

That's your world. Welcome to mine...


> Use a spell checker when you write, when you revise, when you proofread. All
> that can be (has to be) done upstream.

It can, but that doesn't mean that it has to be except, possibly, to use 
a spelling checker.


> I know what I say can lead into a long discussion.

Indeed.


> Arguments such as "it''s
> now possible, let's reinvent the workflow" may arise...

I've never had occasion to use a work flow like yours.  If it works for 
you that's fine, but I don't see why you have to take a philosophical 
position that it should be enforced on others.


> Or, weaker, "I do
> all the work myself and I want to be able to spell check at any time in the
> process"... etc.

You may consider it weak, though I think that's a bit judgemental if 
you've only ever worked with one sacred kind of work flow.


> Spell checking at DTP level is close to be a waste of time for everybody in
> the workflow.

In your world.


> Even if there is only one person in the workflow.

There is, and it's not a waste of my time.


> People have
> a hard time getting this idea across

Possibly because it's not a Universal Truth(tm).


> but let's put it in a more concrete
> manner. It's exactly like asking the plumber or the electrician to come over
> once the walls are closed. I cannot support this idea from my humble
> knowledge of the publishing workflow and from 20+ years of production
> experience.

Dubious analogies aside, you may be able to speak with vast authority 
about your work flow, but your work flow is NOT universal, nor I suggest 
should or need it be.


> And no, this is not fighting! It's common sense.

#define COMMON_SENSE "My way !"


> But, to
> understand this common sense, one has to be aware of the whole process.

You need to be aware of your whole process, I need to be aware of mine.


> The concrete has dried and you now want to change the basement. Okay! Do
> what you want! Call the heavy machines on site. Break the concrete. Redo
> everything. But there are far more productive ways to work and it's far more
> efficient to learn them than to want to achieve counterstream operations.
> And there are more productive ways than to ask the coders to give you tools
> that will allow just about anything to be done in any order, no matter if
> this is counterproductive or not. I believe we have a problem here.

On the whole I think avoiding analogies are best avoided in these 
discussions.


> Some specialised tasks have to be done but not in any order!

I'm not sure that assuming / imposing particular order on behalf of 
_all_ users is a great idea though.


> We could find
> dozens of such examples. When in a restaurant, you don't expect the beef to
> be killed just before your eyes. The beef will have to be killed at some
> point, yes. But way upstream. Now, we are at plate serving and there is no
> room for killing the beef at this moment. Plus, it's going to be a mess.
> Now, you may smile reading this but really, the same applies to spell
> checking.

:)   Not in my kitchen.


> At some point it's going to be a mess and we have to acknowledge
> this. Spell checking has to be done upstream.

Having spell checking available where ever words can be changed seems 
sensible to me.

Your logic doesn't need to be extended much to allow us to forgo the 
ability to edit text at all in Scribus, because after all, in your world 
it's an upstream task.


> Plus, it has to be done by
> skilled people, not a blind computer. (But I agree the computer could help.)

It spells better than I do. But no spelling checker (except Word
maybe ?) makes changes without the consent of the author, and I'm not 
proposing that. The 'blindness' or context insensitivity of the computer 
is a spurious argument.


> As always, I am ready to listen to new ways, new ideas... We never know! But
> I look at this also from the perspective that we have lots of things much
> more difficult and critical to deal with and Spell Checking is not and
> cannot be a priority. At least, I hope it is not a priority!

It may not be a priority for you. It is for me. People have different 
needs, and assuming that some are massively more 'correct' or 
'righteous' seems a bit questionable to me, especially in a world where, 
like it or not, work flow is evolving.


> I will try to explain better if it has to be clearer. One more thing I could
> say is the digital world often lead us to believe we can do and redo just
> about anything and it's always a matter of seconds, or minutes... But this
> is not true. It may well be a matter of hours...   and more.

:)  Speaking for your self.


> Digital
> production workflow is facing real efficiency issues over time and we are
> only beginning to realise this. There is lots of time lost in front of
> computer screens.

There's a lot of work done in front of them too.

Can we say something quantitative of abandon the 'attack of the 
unquantified assertions' ?


> We often want to program to go faster and do everything and we forget that
> the most important is not the program, it's the human using it.

My request for a spelling checker is exactly and precisely because of 
the human being in front to it.


> And again, we only have a few coders...

Indeed, but they already seem to have coded the spell checker, (cheers 
guys !!), so I at least will be happy one day.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore, MSc EDM (Open), B.A. Chem (Oxon), CMIOSH, AIEMA, MEI
Managing Director, T4 Sustainability Limited. http://www.T4sLtd.co.uk/
Carbon Trust Consultant: Energy Audit, Carbon Footprint, Design Advice
Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme, (EEAS), Registered Assessor
Phone: 0845 4561332   Mobile: 07785 563116   Skype: t4sustainability