Re: InWords

[gfavelle@muug.mb.ca (Gord Favelle)]

In <1l3qcoINNmk4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb408@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jason Reames) writes:


>I have a Quickie scanner and am thinking of buying InWords to scan text.
>Question: exactly how well does it work?  Say if you scanned a page of text
>about how much editing would one later have to do with a word processor to
>get perfect copy?  Thanks!
>-- 
>R Reames .............................................Maranatha!!

Hows this for an answer: DEPENDS!

Seen this one before eh?  Actually it does depend upon a few factors,
the most important is the quality of the original copy you are planning to
scan.  For example if it is a good clean font, nice block format with few
pictures, underlining, etc. AND you have "trained" Inwords very well to
read this font you can get a fairly decent recognition rate.  Since there
are alot of IFS in the preceeding sentence it can be frustrating to get a
good (accurate) scan.  I've also found that if you try to merge two
separate scans (necessary if the width of the text you are scanning is
greater than the scanner head) it is difficult to match them up correctly
unless it is a good block full justification format.

A new version of Inwords has been released which is supposed to get around
some of these issues but I haven't received my update as yet so I can't
comment.  Perhaps someone with experience with the newer version can comment?


-- 
Internet: gfavelle@muug.mb.ca	| Condoms aren't completely safe.  A friend	
GEnie:	  G.FAVELLE   		| of mine was wearing one and got hit by a
AOL:	  Cpt Canada		| bus.   (Bob Rubin)