Why Apple iWork Really Matters

[MacBytes]

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Why Apple iWork Really Matters (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050129005449)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[macnulty]

How many people use a grammar checker? I always found it odd that it seems to be always near the top of "must have" feature lists.

[24C]

IMO, Grammar checkers are for people who are scared of creating mistakes, because they allude to be greater than they really are...although after using M$ Word and seeing green zigzags everywhere I can understand why!

[Chobit]

Grammar checker tends to lead many stylistic problems. Word is especially fond of saying when you are in the passive voice, and many students see this and assume they are wrong. They will rewrite until the green lines disappear, and it becomes much less readable because the sentences are now no longer written with the rest of the paragraph in mind.

I admit, I do NOT the world's greatest writer, or even a particularly good one, but I am constantly amazed by some of the horrible writing of my peers.

Now if only Safari had a grammar check so i could make sure i didn't mess this post up...

[Ambrose Chapel]

my office produces nothing but reports and we have grammar checker turned off in word. just proof it yourself or get a cold reader!

[Applespider]

Agreed. I keep 'spelling' turned on to catch typos although in formal writing, i go back and proofcheck it. Grammar is turned off - if I want to write in the passive voice, no little green squiggles are going to stop me!

Spellcheckers are a boon but they're no substitute for knowing how to spell in the first place. They are not going to help with homophones - lose/loose, maid/made, site/sight/cite etc

[pourhadi]

Why don't people understand --

Grammar and spell-checkers are NOT supposed to REPLACE general proofreading. They're meant to compliment proofreading, used as a tool to HELP you, not to do it for you.

That's why I'm a huge fan of it; it may be able to find something someone misses (and EVERYONE misses something).

Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it's not useful. You're not supposed to depend on it; it's just supposed to help.

[maya]

The Grammar checker in Word is bad. I have spell check on since I tend to type fast and at times the keyboard wont pick up the keystrokes correctly due to pressure on the keys.

Other than that I proof it when I am completed. Though I did find Pages to lack some other features that I have grown accustom too. :)

[FosterKanig]

I admit, I do NOT the world's greatest writer,

Am I allowed to chuckle at this? :)

[Chobit]

Chuckle away :p

[Timelessblur]

Why don't people understand --

Grammar and spell-checkers are NOT supposed to REPLACE general proofreading. They're meant to compliment proofreading, used as a tool to HELP you, not to do it for you.

That's why I'm a huge fan of it; it may be able to find something someone misses (and EVERYONE misses something).

Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it's not useful. You're not supposed to depend on it; it's just supposed to help.


Some finally has it right. Grammar check is a very imporant tool and a very valueble tool to me. For the passive voice stuff I just tell it to ignore it but for other errors it is very helpful in finding those. For example fragment sentices, extra spacing, tence changes, adding or forgetting an s at the end of the word.

Some people are very good writers others are not. Some of you dont know what it is like to live with some disablitly like Dyslixia. Dyslixia effects my writing heavily coming out in small gramical error and spelling errors. I honestly will not see them because of the disablity. I think it pretty bad that a so call mordern word processor lacks that and so looks like apple may of failed again at making a modern word processor

[Chobit]

I guess it was a pretty bad idea to not proofread a post on how bad grammar checkers are. I did, however, check to see if word's (2004) grammar checker would catch that, and the only mistakes it found were the two uncapitalized I's in the last paragraph.

[Timelessblur]

I guess it was a pretty bad idea to not proofread a post on how bad grammar checkers are. I did, however, check to see if word's (2004) grammar checker would catch that, and the only mistakes it found were the two uncapitalized I's in the last paragraph.

and grammicly it does not have very many errors. Good writing it is another thing but grammicly they are few and far bettween. I stated it was bad not to have it in a so call mordern word processor.

[Chobit]

I will not argue against the point of helping people with disabilities, or using at a tool to help you catch things you may miss as they are both completely valid points. For now, at least, people who have such a need should stick with a word processor with such capabilities. My major concern is the staggering majority of people (at least in my experience) who don't use it as a tool alongside proofreading, but as their only proofreading. Grammar check shouldn't be necessary for most people.

That said, it is obvious that this is a wanted tool, and apple needs to include it in future releases. Hopefully, and preferably, they will release it systemwide like spell check. This way they could do it before the next release of pages, too.

[Timelessblur]

I will not argue against the point of helping people with disabilities, or using at a tool to help you catch things you may miss as they are both completely valid points. For now, at least, people who have such a need should stick with a word processor with such capabilities. My major concern is the staggering majority of people (at least in my experience) who don't use it as a tool alongside proofreading, but as their only proofreading. Grammar check shouldn't be necessary for most people.

That said, it is obvious that this is a wanted tool, and apple needs to include it in future releases. Hopefully, and preferably, they will release it systemwide like spell check. This way they could do it before the next release of pages, too.

oh I agree that it pretty sad when people use it as their only tool for proof reading. I general use it to speed up the processes of proof reading and get the small stupid errors that it catchs then will do a proof read on it to see if there is anything else. If it more imporant I ask a friend who is good at writing to look it over and have them see if there is anything wrong and to help me impove it.
Grammer check should be consider a tool in proof reading. Not a replacement and it should of been included. I am among the people who treat it like a tool to help out proof reading not a replacement and the only time that it is a replacement for proof reading is when all I would of done would of been to run a spell check on it any how so there would of been no proof read of it.

[Chobit]

And the forum falls silent as we realize we're all kinda in agreement....

[24C]

And the forum falls silent as we realize we're all kinda in agreement....
And in the still of the 'night', there is a hush, as they go about proof reading their other posts :)

[munkle]

and grammicly it does not have very many errors. Good writing it is another thing but grammicly they are few and far bettween. I stated it was bad not to have it in a so call mordern word processor.

Am I allowed to chuckle at this?!! :p

[24C]

Am I allowed to chuckle at this?!! :p
They can't see you, I did and nobody told me off yet. :p

[Timelessblur]

end of the story is apple has failed for the 2nd time in a row in making a modern word processor. Maybe they stand a chance at getting right on their 3rd try

1 it has to be fully capicble with MS word and the doc fomate sine that is the industy standard
2nd it does need to have in a spell check and grammer check in a modern word processor which is iWork Page lacks.

[nagromme]

As long as Pages has some benefits Word doesn't then it's a good option to have. No product is right for everyone. Apple doesn't need to make a Word clone.

[Chobit]

this IS version 1, remember. A newly released product can rarely hope to compete with a mature product until rev 2 or 3.

[Abstract]

I guess it was a pretty bad idea to not proofread a post on how bad grammar checkers are. I did, however, check to see if word's (2004) grammar checker would catch that, and the only mistakes it found were the two uncapitalized I's in the last paragraph.

That's because Word's grammar check is useless.

In a "study" conducted by some group at a US based Uni (read it a year ago....no sources cited....I know, I know, it's dodgy :rolleyes: ), they tested the grammar check of MS Word for the 40-45 common grammatical errors that people generally make, and the grammar check in MS Word only caught 6 of them. That's 6 mistakes of the 40-45 mistakes purposely placed in the document.

Also, when it catches a mistake and recommends a more "correct" way of writing the sentence, it does so incorrectly. You may be substituting one grammatical error for another error recommended by Microsoft. :p

[Mav451]

I genuinely thought that there is no true substitute for a good proofreading, from a friend/peer/teacher. No matter how good a software is, ever (well until we have truly adaptive AI--integrated into a simple Word Processing application no less), there are always things that the human eye will catch.

No algorithm in the world will catch things the way your English teacher can, or your friend can. Hell, even you catch things, provided you "step back" from your paper >> which is frequently the advice of my professors, to take at least 2hours away from it. Some even say to start early so you can wait almost a day, where you literally sleep on it, and come to it the next day. Looking at your paper with fresh eyes lets you see thing you would have "glazed over" had you looked at it just 10min after writing it.

[wowoah]

A lot of people are missing another major point of the grammar check feature: for a lot of people typing/writing in a language other than their first, grammar check is indispensible. We're almost all fluent writers of English, so Word's grammar check seems pointless and limiting, but I know many non-natives who find grammar check to be an excellent help in their attempts to write English. Personally, as a student studying French, Word's built-in French grammar checker has been absolutely invaluable, as it automatically checks my adjective agreements, masculine/feminine pronoun usage, verb conjugation, etc.

[Timelessblur]

this IS version 1, remember. A newly released product can rarely hope to compete with a mature product until rev 2 or 3.


You are correct there. a verson one from apple is an year beta to most programs. verson 2 is more of a PR release beta and then verson 3 is the really what verson 1 should of been

[nagromme]

I don't find that to be a particular problem with Apple software more than other companies. Out of Apple's dozens of software apps, it seems like most are VERY well received in version 1, and then get better from there.

GarageBand, iMovie, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack, LiveType, etc. etc.

Out of all many apps Apple has created, some have version 1 problems. But I wouldn't single out Apple on that. In fact, Apple may be better than average.

And when a product has holes, don't overlook the ways it's AHEAD of the pack as well. Pages looks like it easily bests Word in some regards. All things to consider when choosing a word processor.

The day I pay for a word processor will be the day AppleWorks stops doing everything I need and more :) In fact, when TextEdit gains tables with Tiger, I may not even touch Apple Works. I LIKE a small, simple app to get my work done in.

[24C]

You are correct there. a verson one from apple is an year beta to most programs. verson 2 is more of a PR release beta and then verson 3 is the really what verson 1 should of been
I agree with nagromme on this, when Apple apps come out they normally have a different methodology to some of their obvious competition. I know people that have toproduce newsletters, in order to comply with their industry standards. These are just regular folks, who actually struggle to achieve what they have in their heads with 'industry standard' software, as the software interaction is not intuative enough. Layers, resizing images, masking and transparency are big steps for them.
Apple IMO, has done a good job with their templates on Pages, user interface challenged types can see what their work might look like first, and the chances are these templates will have a similar style to whats in their heads. From this point grappling with the resizing photos, importing them from digital cameras etc becomes easier, and the end result is a lot less hassle to achieve...especially compared to AppleWorks.

Another big feature is Word import, believe it or not, not everybody on Macs has it, and I know you can use TextEdit (but that normally formats badly initially). I often here grumblings that when folks are sent emails with Word attachments they can't open them properly, so this feature in Pages, that is reported to work reasonably well, is welcome.

Looking forward to the next revision, as Apple do make improvements, and actually listen to feedback.

PS. The post about 'grammar checkers' for translation is also valid, and that is one feature that I would love to have. Most I try tend to be way off the mark, downright embarassing and extremely confusing...anybody got any real recommendations for English to Italian.

[gregnacu]

IMO, Grammar checkers are for people who are scared of creating mistakes, because they allude to be greater than they really are...although after using M$ Word and seeing green zigzags everywhere I can understand why!

I hope no one already noticed this, I haven't read all the posts yet. But the irony of the quoted post was too great for me to resist. The correct grammar should be "Grammar checkers are for people who are afraid of creating mistakes." but... The real question is, would Word pick that up... let me check... Hmm. It didn't initially pick it up, but when I check the grammar check preferences there are TONNES of options, most of which I don't understand. The point is, Grammar check has always sucked, and likely always will. It's a poor excuse to not learning proper grammar oneself.

[24C]

I hope no one already noticed this, I haven't read all the posts yet. But the irony of the quoted post was too great for me to resist. The correct grammar should be "Grammar checkers are for people who are afraid of creating mistakes." but...
Fair point, but language is always evolving, and that's why Roget sat down and created a thesaurus. :p

[simX]

I hope no one already noticed this, I haven't read all the posts yet. But the irony of the quoted post was too great for me to resist. The correct grammar should be "Grammar checkers are for people who are afraid of creating mistakes."

Since when? As far as I know, both "afraid" and "scared" are adjectives, so either version of the quote is grammatically correct. Or are you alluding to the fact that, at least according to dict.org, "scared" means "made afraid" and thus "afraid" would be more correct in this context? If that's the case, then I would argue that it's not that the sentence was grammatically incorrect but it just wasn't accurately expressing the thought (even though the actual meaning came across due to the context).

[If you don't want to read my entire rant below, I'll distill it into a sentence for you: Grammar checkers are useless because context is key, and grammar checkers don't check based on context.]

This is one of the main reasons why grammar checkers are indeed useless. I have never seen a grammar checker that recommends correct changes more often than it suggests incorrect changes. This is often due to the fact that most grammar checkers do not examine context, and even if they do, they'll still fail because they can't understand meaning.

A well-written piece of writing is like an onion with several layers. You have good spelling on the outside, which is easy enough for computers to check. Then there's strict grammar, which computers could feasibly check as well. Then there's context, which helps establish correct sentence and verb forms based on previous sentence forms. And then at the core there's meaning, which only the writer himself can accurately convey. Computers, currently, only excel at making sure the outside layer is good (i.e.: the spelling). They can check strict grammar as well, but that's close to useless since it will often recommend sentence forms that won't make sense based on previous sentences. Thus (to extend my analogy to the breaking point), computers can only make sure that the outer two layers of an onion are good even though it still may be rotten at its core. :P

Even for dyslexic people or for people for which English isn't their first language, I am dubious as to whether grammar checkers actually help. Of course, I can't say this objectively because I'm not dyslexic and English is my first language. Nevertheless, I think that in these cases, it's much more beneficial to ask another person to edit your writing rather than rely on a computer. As far as I know, the only grammar checkers out there only check for strict grammar and don't check sentence grammar based on context. For this reason, it's probably better to stay away from them.

[Timelessblur]

grammar checks are very good at catching error I know I make quite offen noramly dealing with pureal and singler set up. Using a pureal verb with a singler subject or the other way around. Forgetting to add in s (and on very rare occition adding a s) Those errors I know my dylixia effects it and makes it diffecult to catch. You can hand me a paper that has those errors in it and have me read it out loud and you will noticed in my reading out loud those errors are not cought nor heard since when I speak it I will speak it grammicly correct. Now me keeping my place correctly is antoher story and I will struggle with that when I change lines but normal it just a small hang up. But the point is I just dont see them I relay on pattern prouble more than the average person and that was just an addutation I made. I that any one who reads a lot reads based on pattern more than anything else I just a little worse than average at that which can make me do a doulbe take because I read the wrong word and the meaning jsut did not make since but that is antoher story.

The point was I just read over the errors and correct them in my head unknowly.

[mrgreen4242]

Grammer checkers are pretty useless when it comes to final proofreading, but they save me tons of time when I am writing. I can be something of a perfectionist when it comes to writing, and I tend to rewrite things over and over again. This can lead to the occasional tense confliction or having a fragment of an older sentence left along with the revised version, things that any decent grammer checker will pick up.

I never actually run the "grammer checker" in Word, I just look for the little green squiggles to help me correct things like this before I start my proof reading. When it comes up with things like passive voice errors or suggests a change in something that isn't blatantly wrong, I ignore it and see what human proofers find wrong.

What would be ideal, for me, is a basic grammer checking system that looked for tense disagreements, sentence frangements (sentences that are lacking one of the important parts, like a verb or subject), and basic punctuation errors. It should also have a highly customizable settings page that lets you select which rules you want it to look for.

Trouble with topics about things like this is that someone inevitably will find some error in the posts from people saying grammer/spelling checkers are useless, and then they just look foolish. :)

Rob

[nagromme]

grammer/spelling

Yuo just can't win! :D

[Eric5h5]

Grammer check should be consider a tool in proof reading. Not a replacement and it should of been included. I am among the people who treat it like a tool to help out proof reading not a replacement and the only time that it is a replacement for proof reading is when all I would of done would of been to run a spell check on it any how so there would of been no proof read of it.

Instead of grammar checking (or at least in addition to it), what we really need is an app that makes a hand come out of the monitor and slap people upside the head when they type "should of" and "would of." I mean really. Stop doing that right now. At least read what you're writing, and ask: does this make any sense at all? (Hint: "should have" and "would have" respectively, just on the off chance it isn't blindingly obvious.)

--Eric

[Timelessblur]

Instead of grammar checking (or at least in addition to it), what we really need is an app that makes a hand come out of the monitor and slap people upside the head when they type "should of" and "would of." I mean really. Stop doing that right now. At least read what you're writing, and ask: does this make any sense at all? (Hint: "should have" and "would have" respectively, just on the off chance it isn't blindingly obvious.)

--Eric


Well you are a nice NOT.
Appently I not an engish major and it shows doesnt. I dont see anything wrong with it. So you mr Perfect may go back to what ever perfect hole you crawled out and live there where noughting wrong goes on.

Also it clear you did not read my other post. I NOT GOING TO SEE THE ERROR IF I JUST WROTE IT. The answer you are looking for is some of the earily post in this thread on why grammer check should be in a modern Word processor. have a nice day Mr Perfect.