jim said:
>   You might do better by putting
>   a colored transparent text overlay
>   over a colored text base, such that
>   one can spot the color change where
>   the (additive please not subtractive)
>   colors "don't mix."
>  
>   For example a green base text layer
>   with an additive red transparent text
>   OCR overlay layer give you a yellow letter
>   where the colors mix -- "hit",
>   but green or red where there is a "miss".

big kudos to jim for his improvement upon the
well-known standard suggestion of this tactic...

it's very clever.

the problem is that it's _too_ clever, by half...

you guys are treating this task as if it is some
visual-discrimination type of chore, which is
the mistake someone would make if they had
rarely -- or perhaps _never_ -- done the job...

but for anyone who has actually _tracked_ the
type of errors that are common in o.c.r. today,
a visual approach to this task is the last resort.

once again, the _most_ common type of error is
spacey punctuation.  you don't need some fancy
"color overlay" to find spacey punctuation, folks!

indeed, you don't even need to _look_ for it at all!
you can merely instruct your text-editor to find it.

when d.p. started, a decade ago, maybe then you
needed to verify every line, word-for-word -- but
today that's a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

unless/until y'all get that through your thick skulls,
you are chasing your tails around the wrong bush...

and your efforts will never begin to scale as needed.

-bowerbird

p.s.  the smartest digitizers, like nicholas hodson,
have known for _years_ that text-to-speech is the
_best_ strategy for finding well-disguised errors...
your computers and ipads can _speak_!  use that!