Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!jatst3
From: jatst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jozsef A Toth)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Request for Comments on Article Found in comp.sys.mac.digest
Message-ID: <22581@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 90 20:03:55 GMT
References: <66437@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <635636458.4382@minster.york.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jatst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jozsef A Toth)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 19

In article <635636458.4382@minster.york.ac.uk> russell@SoftEng.UUCP (russell) writes:
>
>Knuth says, in the TeXbook, that good typesetting deserves high quality
>text (or something similar, anyway) - I feel that the converse is true in
>practice: the better the typesetting, the worse the content tends to be...
>
>if you are not careful, that is...
>
I would recommend something a little more recent like Framemaker (available on
a Sun) and then you won't have to worry about your semantic mental masturbation
when it comes to what document processing tool you want to use.  This is almost
like the slide rule vs. calculator vs. Exponential notation pencil&paper arg-
ument.  A decade or so ago a real man used a slide rule or paper&pencil to do
real calculations and a wimp resorted to a calculator.  In "Psych. of Everyday
Things" Norman uses the same analogy for document editors, spelling checkers
etc.  The point he stresses is that one should focus on the CONTENT and not the
MECHANICS of the task-at-hand.  Tweeking using all those archaic text formatters
(I assume you're a vi user also) does shift one's focus away from the content
and towards the mechanics.