Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watsol.waterloo.edu!tbray
From: tbray@watsol.waterloo.edu (Tim Bray)
Subject: Usefulness of colour & simplicity of text applications.
Message-ID: <1990Jul5.191121.10139@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <9007031301.AA08567@zephyrus.crd.Ge.Com> <9007031705.AA00978@kestrel.>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 90 19:11:21 GMT
Lines: 26

think!ames!Unify.com!OpenLook@eddie.mit.edu writes:
>	I agree that color isn't essential for simple text applications,
>	but I believe that practically all workstations are used for
>	more complex work.

Not all text applications are a priori "simple".  We're in the business of
selling text-based applications with X user interfaces - we're a spin-off of
the New Oxford English Dictionary project at U of Waterloo.  These
applications are not simple.

One of the great things that bitmap interfaces give you is the ability to
approximate good typography on somebody's screen.  This, among other things,
makes non-simple text applications possible - the first 2 or 3 generations of
computer equipment abandoned all the text presentation technology (case,
punctuation, multiple-variable-pitch fonts, white space, kerning, leading)
that homo sapiens had spent c. 5000 years developing to make reference texts
useful.

But the poster is correct - advanced typography, as practiced in reference
books, relies hardly at all on colour.  And for windows-based non-simple text
applications, colour is just sugar - totally non-cost-effective given the
exorbitant price of colour display technology.  Yes, we built colour into the
applications, but that's mostly a trade show feature.

Just another data point
Tim Bray, Open Text Systems, Waterloo