It will be interesting to see what your testing reveals.
I remember that, at the time, abbyy's accuracy with formatting location
and boundaries was not good, and that one could spend more time fixing
what's there than to put it there in the first place.
Perhaps the benefit is that one might neglect to check some pages for
formatting; rather than that one scanned tbe page for formatting and
missed it. And we have no crosschecks for the kinds of errors only
a human reader will notice, so no equivalent to the evidence you are
using to detect your missed punctuation.
Suggested test: add a checkbox saying "Check formatting" and prohibit
proceeding to another page until the box is checked.
Also consider how the abbyy formatting data could be used by software
after your proofing, to consider each location where abbyy found formatting
and whether you had put formatting there; and resolve the differences efficiently.
Don
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Roger Frank
<rfrank@rfrank.net> wrote:
On Dec 25, 2011, at 10:55 AM, don kretz wrote:
> Roger,
>
> Are you trying to proof and format at the same time?
>
> I did that experiment several years ago with the same effect.
>
> Don
in seems counterproductive, especially since Abbyy's output
has a higher catch percentage than I believe a foofer does.
And having two foofers go through each page of a book like
this seems to be a waste of resources.