Spell & Grammar checker

[dswellhauser]

Whenever I right click a spell error the first time after opening the program there is a lag before the context menu opens...this is very annoying.

The grammar checker is inadequate to the point of being useless. After finishing a document I always need to check this in MS Word to be certain I've not missed anything.

Also, grammar checker often mentions that I have fail to use an open quotes mark when I use a close quotes after a long piece of dialogue.

Also, grammar checker is confused by proper nouns -- often suggests I change to a lower or upper case and then wants me to change it back...this passive aggressive attitude is not useful.

Good product but still needs a lot of work.

[MimeticMouton]

You can tell that to Apple. Scrivener just uses the OS X system spelling and grammar tool, so none of this is handled by the program. I've never found grammar checkers to be anything more than huge annoyances, so I long ago made a habit of immediately turning the "feature" off in any program that offers it. If Word's works for you, then by all means run your compiled document through that for polish, though I'd be careful of relying on it--be sure to give your work a careful read yourself (or bribe a friend with a good eye!).

[KB]

Fair comment on Apple's text system, though: good product but still needs a lot of work.

[dswellhauser]

If they only use Apple's system for spell and grammar checking that is a fail for the program. Any word processing program needs a good spell and grammar checker that you can modify to your needs. Of course Scrivener is about writing and only writing but that does not mean we shouldn't helping to improve it and alert others to flaws in the design.

My grammar is fine, but in the throws of creation I can go off reservation. I'm not opposed to sentence fragments, subject verb disagreement, dangling participles, playful verb tenses, comma splices, number disagreements, etc. but a good spell and grammar checker can be a very useful tool and properly belongs in all word processing programs.

If this means jacking up the price it would be worth it.

[PJS]

Any word processing program needs a ...grammar checker....

You present as axiomatic what some might consider a matter of opinion...

Scrivener is about writing and only writing....

... then dispose of your own argument before finishing it.

...alert others to flaws in the design.

There are many — I daresay even into the dozens — of us others, the majority of whom, aware of the situation you describe, do not regard it as a flaw.

throws of creation

Do you perhaps mean "throes?"

ps

[Jaysen]

… can be a very useful tool and properly belongs in all word processing programs.

And that is the basis of the disagreement on the need for spell/grammar checking more complete than the OX default.

Scrivener is NOT a "word processing environment". As KB clearly articulates numerous times in numerous places, Scrivener is intended to be a "writing environment". The former implies refinement and presentational focus while the latter implies focus on capture, flexibility, and creativity. It took me a while to see the difference, but once internalized, the gap between the two concepts is so enormous that I often wonder how anyone could use a "word processor to draft all but the simplest communications.

[Jordi Mora]

throws of creation

Do you perhaps mean "throes?"
ps

[PJS]

flinging an irritating book

touché

phil

[Fluff]

Dr Dog wrote:
flinging an irritating book

touché

Canine thug and grumpy old codger!
Fluff

[Jordi Mora]

Dr Dog wrote:
flinging an irritating book

touché

Canine thug and grumpy old codger!
Fluff

[Fluff]

defence I should add that the Curmudgeonly Canine does have sunny spells, is not really all that old, and only ever flings books written by modern academic philosophers.

Canine thug, you're obviously not aware of the fact that the world doesn't revolve around you...it has its own axis. PJS is the 'Curmudgeonly' individual: grumpy old codger!
Fluff

[KB]

Pretty much all programs across OS X excepting Word and OpenOffice use the standard OS X spelling and grammar checker, so I strongly disagree that this is a "fail for the program". The spelling checker is good enough for Pages and Mail, for instance, and for most users (it's not something that's ever really come up as an issue before). As a single developer, it would make no sense to invest major time and investment on a new spelling- and grammar-checking system when there is already one built into the text system with which the vast majority of users are happy, and to which they are accustomed from other programs.

(I do also tend to think that an over-reliance on spelling- and grammar-checkers beyond basic spell-checks is an evil of the computer age. )

All the best,
Keith

[nom]

The built-in OS X spelling dictionary is good enough for me. In fact, it is better than most (if not all) of the others I have used with the added benefit that any new words I add are available across all my apps (with the irritating exception of Word). I much prefer it this way and would, as evidenced by my experience of Word, be frustrated if every app had its own dictionary.

I have yet to see a (non-human) grammar checker that is beyond superficially useful.

[dswellhauser]

This thread is way off topic.

Really, a writing environment is not a word processor? Heard of sophistry?

Scrivener is a word processor by any definition...and arguing most other programs don't create their own spell & grammar checker is simply saying like most things Apple/OSX they are lazy.

Scrivener needs a spell & grammar checker...it is incomplete without one.

Not having one will not stop me from using the program, but professional work needs this next level text examination. It does not mean we should not worry about grammar/spelling on our own, but it does mean it will/should catch errors we may accidentally miss on a first pass.

Tools do not replace human thought, though they will soon enough, but they are an important adjunct to this.

Checkers are useful in this sense. Some care not to use them, so turn them off, but to improve productivity they are a necessary/useful feature which all so-called writing environments [really...you cannot be serious about that piece of sophistry??] require to be fully functional.

[dswellhauser]

The built-in OS X spelling dictionary is good enough for me. In fact, it is better than most (if not all) of the others I have used with the added benefit that any new words I add are available across all my apps (with the irritating exception of Word). I much prefer it this way and would, as evidenced by my experience of Word, be frustrated if every app had its own dictionary.

I have yet to see a (non-human) grammar checker that is beyond superficially useful.

The spell and grammar checkers have been getting better and better since they were introduced in the mid-90s...but Apple's lags behind MS Office by a very large margin. The evolution of these tools has been significant, but once AI is honed a little bit more they will be brilliant. I like the idea of a global dictionary but that would involve the lag I hate so much in the Apple spell checker and grammar checker.

Primarily, I am a PC user but use Scrivener on my Mac [iMac & Pro] and so I am more productivity based whereas Mac is more creative/artistic/design based. When I begin a project my goal is to plan/execute/complete this based upon a strict schedule. The spell and grammar checker help me to accomplish this goal.