Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!uci-ics!truesdel From: truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: WYSIWYG flamage (was Re: what is a word processor and is it any good) Message-ID: <20026@paris.ics.uci.edu> Date: 24 Jul 89 16:17:43 GMT References: <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <18681@mimsy.UUCP> <8735@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <43132@bbn.COM> Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu Lines: 96 cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >There are two other major problems with WYSIWYG systems: > ... you start on a doc that will talk about Unix and decide, > for no really good reason [you're not really trained in all this, > after all] to use boldface for Unix commands AND Unix file names. > You run off a proof of your document and realize that this is was a > loser of a decision: how do you change it now? In TeX, you would > have had \filename and \command and just tweaked one or the other. > When this happened with a WYSIWYG doc here, a programmer had to go > through the WHOLE document by hand, and carefully sort out which > was which, and then a copyeditor had to go and change the font on > EACH affected word....ugh! The real world (of multi-author > documents, of text that must survive its original venue and move > forward from document to document) is filled with examples like > this where the loss of the logical structure of the document bags > you. I don't use it, but I'm pretty sure that FullWrite Professional for the Macintosh addresses these issues fairly completely. > The second is that virtually no one with a Mac on their desk has ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I would call this an extreme statement, but the point is well taken. > the barest smidgeon of training in matters relating to document layout > and design[*]. Fonts , point sizes, leading, page layout, etc., are > chosen at random or on a whim, typographical conventions are > invented on the fly. Is the page too black (and so will turn Once again: "The Power to be Your Worst"! > readers away)? Is it hard to skim the document (and so any reader > who is bored in the first page will be obliged to dump the > document)? Does the document help focus the reader's (presumably > limited) attention on the really important parts? Does the > document shout "We're not very professional here"? Judging from > most of the stuff produced here at BBN, the prevailing attitude is > that having read a whole bunch qualifies them to "we don't know art > but know what we like" [just as, I suppose, they would argue that a > lifetime of watching movies qualifies them to direct one]; the > 'meta issues' (like "does the document really DO what it was > intended for?") is not even a consideration. > [*] As I've pointed out here at BBN, and as is painfully > apparent to the editorial staff who have to SEE a lot of the > crap we write, very few of us are even competent to deal with > the basic *writing* style matters. Would these ideas be better > served by longer or shorter paragraphs? Should they be > described in running text or in a simple bulleted list? Should > it be written in the present or future tense? Are the > sentences too long and complicated? etc... It is amazing to > get into an argument over point sizes with someone who seems > not to be able to write a decent paragraph in the first place, > but is filled to the brim with ironclad opinions about the > proper way to PRESENT the sow's ear so as to silk-purse it. It has been pointed out before that "The Power to be Your Best" is not mutually exclusive to "the power to be your worst". Writing is hard enough without having to become a typographer thrown on top of the other requirements. In fact, for any production requirement, having the writing of text and the designing of the document handled by the same person is virtually unheard of. Copy writers should not be allowed near any software which allows them to embed formatting commands. This is a job for the designers and typesetters. I have virtually NO experience in production professional writing environments, but in some smaller "Desktop Publishing" job shops I've consulted for, the writers input straight text only. When they are done and it has been proofed for spelling, content, readability, etc., it is ported over to Macs for formatting/typesetting. If you set the copy writers in front of Macs, 2 things happen: * 1. The job take 2 to 3 times longer than need be. * 2. There is no consistancy of style. Anyway, there is nothing new about this problem. one other point I picked up from reading Bernie's posting: If the people doing the work can't write well, WHAT ARE THEY DOING WORKING THERE!?!? Writing isn't simple; it shouldn't be left to simpletons. -- Scott Truesdell