Hi BB, All, BB you wanted some clarification so I will try. First, I do not have the time to look closely at either tool nor overs, as it would take to long for me to properly analyze them, and due the analysis merit. So I will proppose a possible design. Take the good, leave the bad. Second the design is taken from tools used for creating critical editions. A critical edition is where two or more versions of a text are put side by side and commented on. It is used most on historical texts, translations, etc. Some of this is possibly overkill. In my opinion would be a tool with four windows/frames: 1) the scan 2) version 1 3) version 2 4) the proofed version Yes, BB, there is the problem of screen clutter and the possibility of offering to much information. Yet, a single line for 2 and 3 may be to little as the co-text may offer hints for a possible correct version. Then again we are proofing and since we can assume that a proofer has done this regularly s/he will easily adjust. The scan (1) would be optimally syncrhonised with the passage being checked. 2 and 3 should have at least three lines of text each. Generally, 5 would be better. Though for the purpose of proofing less might do! 4 would be contain the entire new proofed version but sync at first to the conflict being investigated. Now, we have three cases to consider: a) version 1 is correct b) version 2 is correct c) neither 1 or 2 is correct d) the case where 1 and 2 are correct is actually not possible in our context unless version 1 and 2 are comming from different edition. Still we can handle this in the same manner as c. For cases a and b you have a button to accept that version as correct. For case c we could simply fall back into the editor and let the proofer hand edit. Another possiblity would be to offer possible hints for a correction. These could come from: - spellchecker - list of changes already made in the text or entire scan set. The spell checker is trivial. The list is a can of worms by itself. Though it would be a compromise to your text wise change BB. That is we had this before and could be the case. When the proofer is done with the "diffs", fold up the windows of 1 and 2 expand windows/frames for the scan and corrected version check for other possible mistakes and save. Hope this helps. If not hit delete. regards Keith. Am 15.03.2010 um 20:40 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
keith said:
True enough. Yet, the arguement stands.
perhaps you didn't catch my entire gist.
_of_course_ one needs to allow for the possibility of editing either version, since both might be incorrect.
as i pointed out, my tool (which supports jim's tool) does exactly that.
At least in my opinion. The trivial cases are easy to handle, yet it is always the RARE cases where tools can shine and set themselves apart from the rest.
[snip, snip]
Actually, both methods are kind of primitive from a Human Interface standpoint.
i always appreciate it when someone analyzes my tools.
so let's see what you have to say here, keith.
a better way would be having two windows containing two or more lines above and below the diff and marking each.
a little bit of context can help elucidate the difference. too much context can bury it, depending on the display. i'd have to see exactly what you mean in order to decide.
in my-tool-in-support-of-jim's tool, the change-window is a movable modal, so people can simply look back at the main window if they need to see more than 1 line of context.
(i could also put multiple content lines in the top box of the change-window, if feedback indicated people wanted them.)
If you ever work with critical editions you will understand the cavet of this method.
if it impossible for you to explain in words?
The changes can then be made in a third.
again, not sure what you really mean here...
All can be enhanced with colors and other neat features.
you can always "enhance" anything with "other neat features". the hard part is _coming_up_ with those "other neat features".
***
we should remember that my tool-in-support-of-jim's tool isn't how _i_ would do the job. i was just trying to show how to make his tool work better. i've shown how i do the job...
here's how i showed diffs with gardner's book, on 23 february:
that laid out the entire book, with diffs in different colors...
here's a simple reworking of that file, which i just posted:
this version of the file lets you click a link to see each scan, and gives you radio-buttons where you can select the correct alternative for each diff. (or choose neither if both are wrong.)
this is how i would approach this task with an _online_ thrust, working in a collaborative manner. but i'd probably prefer to do it with an _offline_ app instead, since that's more efficient.
-bowerbird _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d