Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.text
Subject: Re: To WYSIWYG or not to WYSIWYG
Message-ID: <793@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Dec-85 22:58:27 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.793
Posted: Wed Dec  4 22:58:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 04:29:17 EST
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 26

I have used both WYSIWYG and batch style word processors of a few flavors.

You all kinda miss the point, you are all kinda correct (in my opinion.)

WYSIWYG is great for short, simple documents (very short, very
simple).  It is nearly useless for anything more than a few pages, and
the uselessness seems to go up as the square of the size of the
document.

If I *had* to make a choice (why do these discussions always imply that
I do?) I would certainly choose the TROFF style over WYSIWYG. Why? Because
short simple documents are rarely the problem (hell, you can often get
away with just setting it up in EMACS and putting a .nf, .na at the top
and a font choice, maybe a few .sp's, but trivial.) On the other hand,
with what I have seen I would hate to have to use a WYSIWYG for a long
document.

I think the best thing to do is to own both, thus keeping the WYSIWYG
very simple and not be tempted to pump it full of features to help
with long documents. It would also mean the investment in learning
the WYSIWYG is minimal compared to the convenience.

Now, if we would only start seeing 4K X 4K screens to match our 300dpi
printers...

	-Barry Shein, Boston University