I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would make 95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering everything. Even if both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and that can sometimes be its own blessing.
Don Hart on 2/9/04 4:46 PM, Mark D Lew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote: > >> Note bene: I am not familiar with note scanning software. >> >> I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software. >> >> "95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless >> document. It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it >> from scratch. >> >> 95% "sounds" good. In reality, it produces an illegible (and >> unreadable) text document. > > That also matches my experience, from my days as typesetter for a > weekly journal that reprinted numerous press releases. Unless the > accuracy is up around 98% you're going to spend more time futzing with > the file than you would retyping it. Part of the problem is that you > don't know where the 5% errors are, so in addition to fixing the > errors, you have to double-check everything. > > Admittedly, an important factor in this equation is how fast a typist > you are. If retyping is a slow process for you, then your threshold of > accuracy to make scanning worthwhile is going to be lower. > > mdl > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
