Re: Readability Indexes

[Bonni Graham <bonnig -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

Bill Burns wrote:
><snip>I wouldn't rely on Word 6.0's grammar-
>checking function on longer documents.  My experience suggests that it isn't
>very useful or accurate.  I've tried Grammatik 5, and it seems much more
>robust.  I prefer, however, to use my own knowledge and experience in grammar
>and writing to find the errors.

I agree completely with the main point, which is not to RELY on the grammar
checker to find subtle errors, or even rely blindly on its suggestions for the
not-so-subtle ones.

Someone else mentioned that a grammer checher will not identify errors that
couldn't be found by a competent editor or writer, so why use one?  Well, a
spelling checker won't catch any errors that couldn't be avoided by a
competent typist or writer.  I use a grammar checker for the same kinds of
checking I use a spelling checker for: To catch typos (errors introduced by
typing too fast or too poorly) or 'brain-os' (errors introduced by thinking
too fast for my fingers). Often these errors are glaring but invisible: i.e.,
your eye will occasioanlly read what it wants to, not necessarily what is
there.  An automated checker always sees what is actually there.

With the volume of work I need to turn out to keep up with my clients, I need
all the automated help I can get!  It frees me up to manually (visually?)
review final copy for things an automated checker won't catch, instead of
trying to look at EVERYTHING in a limited amount of time.

Bonni Graham
Manual Labour
"The opinions expressed here exactly match those of my employer, since she is
me!"