On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:26:09 -0800, don kretz <dakretz@gmail.com> wrote:
or not, making quite clear. We can't recast the decisions made in the past, but we need to do a better job of learning from them and dong better. Sooner would be nicer than later. Hence rfrank's project.
In that vein, how flexible is the DP software? I've been wondering to what extent parallel P1 rounds might be helpful. I find P2 proofing exceedingly boring because of the small number of errors that are left to be fixed in texts that are well-scanned and well-proofed in P1. I can't imagine how mind-numbing P3 will be if I ever become eligible for that 'status'. I can imagine that only having to look at the differences between redundant P1 proofed texts might be helpful since it would take two independent P1 proofers to overlook the same error to have it slip through. Another potential improvement might be to make texts available to the next round on a per page basis instead of having to wait for all pages to be finished in the previous round. Aforementioned suggestions may be silly, feel free to point out their silliness. Regards, Walter