Poll

Should we remove the spellchecker from Wedge?

YES!!!
30 (83.3%)
No, but replace pspell with support for enchant.
1 (2.8%)
No, my English-speaking community loves it.
3 (8.3%)
No, my non-English-speaking community loves it.
2 (5.6%)
Total Members Voted: 34

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,063
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #45, on October 10th, 2011, 04:13 PM »
You can change your vote now.

MultiformeIngegno

  • Posts: 1,337
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #46, on October 10th, 2011, 08:24 PM »
I voted for deletion... I use the one built in my browser (if any)!

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #47, on October 10th, 2011, 11:51 PM »
There is a random side benefit that I suspect no-one but me would pick up on.

If the spell checker is removed from core, it means that it becomes easier to write xx-locale language packs, e.g. Pirate :D
When we unite against a common enemy that attacks our ethos, it nurtures group solidarity. Trolls are sensational, yes, but we keep everyone honest. | Game Memorial

godboko71

  • Fence accomplished!
  • Hello
  • Posts: 361
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #48, on October 11th, 2011, 12:13 AM »
I am not voting, unless YES remove it and make it a plug-in. If its a plugin and there is demand it will be maintained, if its in core it has to be maintained, but you have one problem which extension do you use, the "new" preferred one or the old one?

At the end of the day I say move it to plug-ins, people that need spell check will download it, no more work really then having to enable it to begin with.
Thank you,
Boko

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #49, on October 11th, 2011, 12:20 AM »
Quote
the "new" preferred one or the old one?
It's not exactly a choice. pspell won't be available properly in 5.3 and enchant isn't available conveniently in 5.2 (though it *can* be available). It's not that hard to support both though if you know what you're doing. I say this with the full knowledge of having read up on enchant's API...


That said, I suspect no-one here but me actually knows how tightly bound the spellchecker is into SMF. It's not just in the post page.[1]
 1. It's available in the post/quick reply pages, the profile page for spell checking your signature and it's used in the search pages to identify potentially mis-spelled words. This is distinctly non trivial to cleanly integrate.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,063
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #50, on October 11th, 2011, 12:36 AM »
Hey, I knew about these too :P
Actually, the only reason I enabled the spellchecker on my server back in 2008 was to have that cool "maybe you meant..." at the top of the page.

Only problem -- 90% of the time, it suggests a totally stupid alternative to my perfectly working search term ;)

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #51, on October 11th, 2011, 01:18 AM »
Quote
Hey, I knew about these too :P
I stand corrected, then! :) But what I was getting at is that it's a very exclusive club. And the more time that goes on the more exclusive that's going to be, especially for a feature that really doesn't work all that well, and is being outclassed on the browser end (except by IE users who I think are still left without a spellchecker)

CJ Jackson

  • I got myself a new iPad, a different world to the iPhone!
  • Posts: 241
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #52, on October 11th, 2011, 01:39 AM »
 :lol:  Very simple for me really, considering many browsers have spell checkers, I would say yes! ;)

Cassiel

  • Posts: 44
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #53, on October 11th, 2011, 03:07 AM »
Quote from Arantor on October 10th, 2011, 11:51 PM
If the spell checker is removed from core, it means that it becomes easier to write xx-locale language packs, e.g. Pirate :D
I've been impartial about this because I use the spellchecker via my browser, but if a Pirate language pack is being talk about here[1] then I'm tempted to cast my vote into "Yes"!
 1. Even if it is just in the realm of "sure, it's possible"...

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #54, on October 11th, 2011, 08:50 AM »
Quote
I've been impartial about this because I use the spellchecker via my browser
That isn't really impartial; it's the main reason to cast out the spell-check function...

DirtRider

  • All truth, in the long run, is only common sense clarified.
  • Posts: 303
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #55, on October 11th, 2011, 11:42 AM »
Most browsers now have the ability to install a spell checker but even with this I have members that still want a spell checker. Now vBulletin does not have it and when I converted from SMF to it this was the single most complaint from my members
“Any code of your own that you haven’t looked at for six or more months might as well have been written by someone else.”
(Eagleson’s Law)

Today's Logo

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #56, on October 11th, 2011, 11:45 AM »
Quote
Now vBulletin does not have it and when I converted from SMF to it this was the single most complaint from my members
Yes, but do they actually *use* it?

Hands up who remembers Sony's infamous removal of OtherOS from PS3? There was a fairly huge outcry - even though 95%+ of users who complained don't use it.

That's something that I've been aware of for a while but never fully understood the dynamics of: people get very upset when you remove a choice from them, even if it's a choice they would probably never actually take. The mere fact of taking away that choice riles them up.

Roz

  • Posts: 22
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #57, on October 11th, 2011, 12:08 PM »
Voted yes. Doesn't make much sense when you have browser spell-checking.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,063
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #58, on October 11th, 2011, 12:28 PM »
Had a quick look at the overall code for spellchecking...

- It represents a sizeable amount of code. Most entries don't take extra CPU cycles when spellchecking is disabled, but it does for instance add 1.5KB of data to the JS editor, even if disabled/not available.

- There is nothing that prevents us from using pspell in the search feature to show potential typos *EVEN* with spellchecking disabled or removed entirely. Actually, I don't even know why the setting is linked to whether you enable the spellchecker or not... Search is expensive in general, might as well make use of pspell if available.

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Spell checker
« Reply #59, on October 11th, 2011, 12:31 PM »
Quote
- It represents a sizeable amount of code. Most entries don't take extra CPU cycles when spellchecking is disabled, but it does for instance add 1.5KB of data to the JS editor, even if disabled/not available.
That would be beneficial to remove, I think.
Quote
- There is nothing that prevents us from using pspell in the search feature to show potential typos *EVEN* with spellchecking disabled or removed entirely.
If it were going to be removed entirely, I'd also have removed the entries in each index.language.php file to cover for the variations in dictionary to be used. But yeah, there's no reason we can't do that.


Also, I mentioned it in the area for signatures. Is that actually necessary? (Mind you, I've thought about integrating the full editor into the signature area anyway so it would be component of that)