TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Readability Indexes From:Bonni Graham <bonnig -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 17 May 1995 13:57:55 -0700
Bill Burns wrote:
><snip>I wouldn't rely on Word 6.0's grammar-
>checking function on longer documents. My experience suggests that it isn't
>very useful or accurate. I've tried Grammatik 5, and it seems much more
>robust. I prefer, however, to use my own knowledge and experience in grammar
>and writing to find the errors.
I agree completely with the main point, which is not to RELY on the grammar
checker to find subtle errors, or even rely blindly on its suggestions for the
Someone else mentioned that a grammer checher will not identify errors that
couldn't be found by a competent editor or writer, so why use one? Well, a
spelling checker won't catch any errors that couldn't be avoided by a
competent typist or writer. I use a grammar checker for the same kinds of
checking I use a spelling checker for: To catch typos (errors introduced by
typing too fast or too poorly) or 'brain-os' (errors introduced by thinking
too fast for my fingers). Often these errors are glaring but invisible: i.e.,
your eye will occasioanlly read what it wants to, not necessarily what is
there. An automated checker always sees what is actually there.
With the volume of work I need to turn out to keep up with my clients, I need
all the automated help I can get! It frees me up to manually (visually?)
review final copy for things an automated checker won't catch, instead of
trying to look at EVERYTHING in a limited amount of time.
"The opinions expressed here exactly match those of my employer, since she is