Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Spell check results all "blue" #478

Open
windymilla opened this issue Oct 5, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Spell check results all "blue" #478

windymilla opened this issue Oct 5, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
future feature New feature or request, but not core

Comments

@windymilla
Copy link
Collaborator

Since for spell check, the bad word is the whole message, the blue selection (on Windows) is a bit overpowering.
Consider

  1. Including context (like other tools, e.g. whole line, but only highlight the bad spelling)
    or
  2. Not highlighting when the whole of the text of the message would otherwise be highlighted.
@windymilla windymilla added the future feature New feature or request, but not core label Oct 5, 2024
@srjfoo
Copy link
Member

srjfoo commented Oct 5, 2024

I think I prefer the second option, though those who are actually PP'ing may prefer the first.

A question, though (and I realize that even though it doesn't seem logical to me, the answer may be "because TTWWADI, and we don't want to confuse existing PPers").

In spellcheck, the words include a count in parentheses following the word, but each instance of the word appears in the list, and you have to click on the correct instance in the list to go to the word. In WF, each "word" appears once in the list, and you click on that one instance in the list to flip through all instances. I admit to being confused by the difference, so I'd like to understand the reasoning.

@windymilla
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Spell check and similar tools are reporting errors and potential errors, so you need to check each one. Word Frequency is more of an analysis tool about the frequency of words, including things like suspects where there is variation in hyphenation, for example. It therefore makes sense to list the words and the user can look at them if they want to. If WF worked like spell check, it would just have every word from every line of the file listed.

@windymilla
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I agree the second option seems better.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
future feature New feature or request, but not core
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants