Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!suze
From: suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett)
Newsgroups: net.text
Subject: Re: Re: To WYSIWYG or not to WYSIWYG
Message-ID: <940@terak.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Dec-85 13:25:19 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.940
Posted: Fri Dec 13 13:25:19 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 05:44:12 EST
References: <793@bu-cs.UUCP> <286@opus.UUCP>
Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 64

> > WYSIWYG is great for short, simple documents (very short, very
> > simple).  It is nearly useless for anything more than a few pages, and
> This doesn't help us at all.  What is the source of the uselessness?

Good point.

> > ...with what I have seen I would hate to have to use a WYSIWYG for a long
> > document.
> 
> WHY?!?!

Good point. I would expect that the complexity of the
document, rather than its actual length could have more
bearing on the usefulness of WYSIWYG, though processing time
must be considered in a long document.

There are three things I consider to be problems with WYSISYG
systems. The first may, or may not be a problem, depending on the
system.

First, I want a very versitile text processor that gives
me tools to do anything I desire. Typical word processors are
extremely limited, they don't usually provide automatic tables
of contents, table formatting, indices, sequencing, versatile
headers & footers, etc. Some do some of these, but I have never
seen one that did it all or was expandable (capability
of adding macros, etc.).

While WYSIWYG systems are generally
far more advanced than typical word processors, they are often
limited in these same types of areas. If the system itself
doesn't provide a particular feature I want, I want it to allow
me to create a macro, using its existing features, to do what
I need. I would opt for a system that had fewer built in
capabilities, but was expandable, to one that did quite a lot
of things, but couldn't be expanded.

Second, most word processors proooduce files that contain
embedded control characters. This makes it difficult to
transfer that file to another system, a task I often necessary.
I expect that WYSIWYG systems also produce files with
embedded control characters. If not, their processing time
must be enormous.

Third, the processing time. I prefer to work on a system that
is NOT dedicated to an individual function. Or, at least is
networked to other systems. If someone else has a draft file
that contains information I need, I want to be able to
transfer it rather than retyping the information. When I have
it edited and formatted, I don't want to tie up the system so
that no one else can get anything done. Using a text
formatter, such as troff (or TEX or Scribe) I slow the system
down for a shorter period of time that if I used an
interactive WYSIWYG system. Also, I can schedule my troffing
to occur at a time when the system load is low, without
stopping work myself.
-- 
Merry Christmas!

Suzanne Barnett-Scott
uucp:	 ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze
CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division
14151 N 76th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(602) 998-4800