Why Apple iWork Really Matters


24C

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2004
519
0
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

macrumors member
Jan 4, 2003
97
0
NY
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...
 

Applespider

macrumors G4
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

macrumors member
Jan 27, 2003
67
0
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

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2004
3,225
0
somewhere between here and there.
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. :)
 

Timelessblur

macrumors 65816
Jun 26, 2004
1,086
0
pourhadi said:
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

macrumors member
Jan 4, 2003
97
0
NY
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

macrumors 65816
Jun 26, 2004
1,086
0
Chobit said:
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

macrumors member
Jan 4, 2003
97
0
NY
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

macrumors 65816
Jun 26, 2004
1,086
0
Chobit said:
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.
 

24C

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2004
519
0
Chobit said:
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

macrumors 68030
Aug 7, 2004
2,580
0
On a jet plane
Timelessblur said:
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
 

Timelessblur

macrumors 65816
Jun 26, 2004
1,086
0
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

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
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

macrumors member
Jan 4, 2003
97
0
NY
this IS version 1, remember. A newly released product can rarely hope to compete with a mature product until rev 2 or 3.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
Chobit said:
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

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
0
Maryland
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

macrumors regular
Jul 16, 2003
187
0
Berkeley, CA
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.