--- Bill Landis <bill.landis@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm guessing a decent typist is still superior to OCR from the proofreading point of view.
Not sure what you mean by "from the proofreading point of view." If you mean that the initial output from a typist is probably better than the initial output from OCR, it's possible, but I wouldn't put money on it. But the production focus for PG has largely shifted from human typing to the DP workflow. It seems a better use of human time to fix up what the OCR didn't get right rather than starting from scratch. Plus, allowing others to proof your work practically requires scans (assuming you don't just want it proofed by your roommate/SO/dog), so once that hard part is done the OCR is pretty straightforward. I would suggest you check the type-in team at DP, which primarily works on projects where the OCR basically failed. You can work on those projects a page at a time in P1 and see how much P2 has to correct further down the line, then decide whether you want to produce an entire text by typing it in yourself. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com