This comes up all the time. a. It's socially unacceptable by acclamation. b. All you prove is that the proofer did or didn't catch an error you already knew about. On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Gardner Buchanan <gbuchana@teksavvy.com>wrote:
On 06-Apr-2010 18:48, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
a proofer can miss things, and still hit the "done" button,
What would happen if the proofing system occasionally *inserted* an error into the page and the double-checked that the known error had been found and fixed? eg: find a correctly spelled word with "m" in it and change to "rn". Choose from amongst a list of 100 similar things.
It might be a little paternalistic towards the proofreader, but would give the automated system some basis for judging whether the proofreader had *actually* proofed the the page or not. It might also help to keep proofers paying attention.
The final test for correctness is then that (1) the fake error is found and fixed, and (2) nothing else changed.
I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, so apologies if you've all covered this ground already.
============================================================ Gardner Buchanan <gbuchana@teksavvy.com> Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today. _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d