The New Oxford American Dictionary

Rating:
Summary: Very nice but...
Review: I love this dictionary, the way it's set out and its definitions and etymology, but what's the deal with the included software version of it. With all the really useful software dictionaries that are being included these days (like COD and Websters New World) it is really disappointing to find this queer little program that is so difficult to use with this dictionary. For your next version you should make a program similar to the COD.

Rating:
Summary: The best dictionary available in America.
Review: I recently went through an exhaustive search for a nearly-unabridged dictionary. My criteria were simple: it needed to be newer, bigger, and more inclusive than my battered 1989 Webster's New World College Dictionary, yet still affordable. Other candidates included the venerable Webster's 3rd International (too big, too old), Random House Webster's Unabridged (not enough international words), American Heritage 4th (pretty, but not comprehensive enough), and the bargain Microsoft Encarta College (too preachy and computer-centric). After throwing a battery of new slang, British slang, international, biographical and high tech terms at all the books, I had many more hits in the New Oxford American than any of its competitors. My only caveat is that there are too many unnecessary photos - who needs Michael Jackson and Madonna in their dictionary, and who will care what Bob Dole and Al Gore look like in five years? There's also a full page of whale drawings, a waste of valuable word space in my view. If you're willing to overlook this minor flaw, this is the best choice of the big American dictionaries. For my needs, its picture-free cousin the New Oxford Dictionary of English (available at the Amazon.com UK site for the same price) is truly the best single-volume comprehensive English dictionary in the world.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful, but a bit heavy
Review: I very seldom have to go beyond The New Oxford American Dictionary. It is clear and concise and the print is dark and readable. The only reason I use dictionaries such as the Webster's New World College Dictionary is they are a bit lighter and easier to handle. If you only plan to buy only one dictionary, I would certainly buy The New Oxford American Dictionary.

Rating:
Summary: Pages 1881-1928 missing
Review: I was looking up the word "wack" and my copy is missing pages. I have it laying out in front of me and I see page 1880 on the left hand side and page 1929 on the right hand side; From vibraphone at the bottom of the left hand page to window's weeds at the top of the right hand page. I'm tempted to check all the pages and see if others are missing. Are all copies missing these pages, or is mine a freak?

Rating:
Summary: NOAD vs. NODE
Review: I would be very interested to see a comparison review of the New Oxford Dictionary of English (NODE) and the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD). I'm having a hard time deciding which dictionary to buy. I live in the USA, though I grew up relying on Oxford dictionaries with British spellings, so this doesn't bother me. The most important things for me are (1) quality of definitions, (2) number of head words, and (3) number of example sentences. One of the words I use to assess a dictionary is how it defines the word "grok"; if the definition is clear and easy to understand, a reference to Robert Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" along with 1st print year is included, and sample usage is given, then that dictionary is pretty darn good in my book. :-)

So, given this, which dictionary would you recommend? Right now I'm leaning towards NODE simply because it has more pages (2176 vs. 2064), but obviously I need an opinion from somebody who can get their hands on both dictionaries. Please contact me directly at tom [underscore] xyz [at] yahoo [dot] com. Thanks in advance!

Rating:
Summary: Exceptional Tool for Student or Adult
Review: I would never have believed I could get this excited about a dictionary! I bought this last year for my fifth grade son when he and I both became dissatisfied with the Merriam-Webster School Dictionary. The M-W was our first attempt at upgrading from his picture dictionary but my son, an average student, struggled with the lack of usage examples. I found that the M-W system of listing the most archaic meanings first was also a hindrance, sometimes maddening. What a joy when the New Oxford American arrived. My son instantly warmed to their profuse usage examples and I was impressed with the more intuitive presentation of words which have multiple meanings. Finally, I found that the font type is very easy on the eyes.

Rating:
Summary: Hmmm...
Review: I'm going to give it 5 stars, even though I have my doubts about some of it.

A new, current dictionary is a wonderful thing. I've never liked American Heritage as they've never seemed thorough or complete enough for my taste, but I think the NOAD editors have done well. If you need a current dictionary immediately it's a decent alternative to the yet-to-be-seen new Websters or next OED. (And if for some weird reason you need a definition for `doh', it's in here.)

It's not a substitute for technical dictionaries, but they have a surprising number of definitions for current technical terminology. That's probably a feature, but... that's where I start to have my doubts. For example, one of their entries is for `JPEG'. Their definition is of questionable usefulness if you don't already know what they're referring to.

Worse, it's going to severely date the dictionary. We've all seen some of the amusing and dated "technical terms" in older dictionaries (like Webster's 3rd), and I often have wondered why the compilers ever bothered to include them in the first place. I believe a lot of terms in NOAD like `JPEG' are going to be goofily dated, if not in 5 years then certainly in 10.

Other questionable features include photographs and definitions for people like the Clintons and Bob Dole (who?). I don't want to appear curmudgeonly, but photos and brief bios of currently famous but soon-to-be-forgotten people don't add any value whatsoever... especially when you consider that a new release will likely take longer than anyone would like. And this isn't a cheap dictionary. I'd rather they dropped the photos and added more obscure words; there are much better sources for current biographical information.

I'm also not thrilled with the font. It isn't horrible, but it isn't high on my list of "most readable fonts" either.

In summary: it's a great choice for a current dictionary. Just be warned that some of the advertised features are going to be obsolete long before the next release.

Rating:
Summary: Disconcertingly unobtrusive user interface
Review: I'm not going to comment on the quality of the dictionary itself, as this has been amply treated on Amazon in reviews of the book only. I'll only comment on the installation program and the user interface.

1. The installation program does not make it clear that the entire database is installed on the hard disk. I didn't understand this the first time I installed it and so to prevent the program from constantly asking for the CD, I copied the CD to my hard drive and installed from the hard drive. I subsequently learned that you don't have to do this, which is good.

2. The installation program seems to force you to register the software and claims it won't function unless you do. So I registered it and just to test how stringent they were checking up on me, I installed it on a second machine. It asked whether I had already registered it and I said yes. Then it asked me to "log in" with my email address and password and the login failed with the claim that I had not registered it. I simply clicked on the close box and found the software fully operational! I then uninstalled it from the second machine to avoid a license violation.

3. I was shocked and a little disgruntled by how unobtrusive the user interface is. It is a toolbar that by default attaches itself to the title bar of the active application. The only thing visible is an edit box for entering a word, plus a couple of tiny buttons to the right of the edit box that you have to click on to see what they do (the buttons are too small to provide descriptive labels, and no tool tips pop up when you hover over them). When you press Enter or click on a button to the right of the edit box, a drop down list appears with the definition of the word. However, the drop down is only partly opened and you need to click on a down arrow to uncover the entire definition. I found this a nuisance.

4. The definition drop down box disapears if you give the focus to another application! This is a serious flaw in the interface, as I might want to read the definition as I am typing into a control in another program. However, you can copy and paste from the definition to another application. I would vastly prefer a full application dialog for the dictionary as the on-line American Heritage Dictionary provides.

5. They have a control panel that can be brought up by clicking on a button on the far end of the dictionary toolbar. You get tool tips when you make the mouse cursor hover over any of the option controls in the control panel. However, the tool tips typically contain too much text to be read fully before the tool tips disappear and you have to move the cursor off the control then hover again to make it reappear so you can read the rest of the tip.

6. The only way that I have found to dismiss a definition is to press the Esc key. There is no close box you can click on to dismiss the definition drop down box, a nuisance.

7. There is a help button on the control panel. This is the only way I have discovered to bring up help. Through the help page, I discovered that you can create "User" dictionaries. This appears to be a very powerful feature and is accessed through an icon that the installation program placed in the system tray. Be sure not to overlook this feature. A minor criticism is that the help text violates some Microsoft User Experience standards (such as using the word "hit" instead of "press"), indicating some careless quality control.

8. A serious flaw is that if you misspell a word, it doesn't offer any corrections as does the American Heritage Dictionary program. You're just out of luck and must try again.

9. The format of the dictionary entries is excellent, superior to the printed definitions in the book. Different parts of the definition are color-coded and so the various parts are much more visible than they are in the book. This I would have to say is the nicest thing about the user interface.

All in all, there are too many flaws in the user interface to give this product high marks at this time. I may get used to its peculiarities and unusual unobtrusiveness and come to like it more. As with anything new, it probably takes some time to get used to it. If I later develop more of a liking for the program (i.e. if I find it displacing my on-line American Heritage Dictionary) I may come back with another review and give it a better rating. Perhaps my biggest problem with the interface is that it doesn't do any spell-checking for you. That is a major flaw in the design of the program.

Rating:
Summary: Oxford dict,
Review: my only complaint is the type is a little small to read.

Rating:
Summary: Meets the needs of the times
Review: Overloaded with new vocabularies, it is no longer a matter of knowing all the words, but to know the slightest nuance distinguishing a word from its verbal brethren.

"The New Oxford American Dictionary" addresses the needs of today's word hunter, providing the reader which words are the 'core' words, so that the other words might not confuse the reader.

New dictionaries will always be important so long as our language is definitionally fluid. Meanings change.

I fully recommend "The New Oxford American Dictionary." Libraries will find it useful, of course, but the families which can afford it will also benefit from "The New Oxford American Dictionary" as well.

Anthony Trendl