27 Sep
2015
27 Sep
'15
11:07 a.m.
On 2015-09-27 12:22 PM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 04:08:07PM +0200, Johnny
Billquist wrote:
Right, if the bitmaps aren't available, then it's not an acceptable archive.
Personally I never, ever, want to see the OCR'd version. But that may be
coloured by a career as typographer and finished artist. No software can
apply the judgment that humans did in the print edition; it's only more
or less degrading steps from that point on.
And to be clear I'm not at loggerheads with Johnny because I am indeed
talking about acceptable archiving practice, not some conversion of a
particular text which might be useful for a particular person on a
particular day.
--Toby
I don't have problems reading the current scans, as such. But when
having ten of these open at the same time, and scrolling through
them, it becomes obvious that the bitmaps are heavy. It can take a
while for the screen to be updated. Not to mention the problems you
sometimes hits with searching...
It seems to me that a better tool could solve the issue. One that
could display the OCR:ed content only and the scanned content
only when desired, for instance when you suspect an error.
Is there such a reader? Is the content organised to make it
possible.
/P