rt@cpsc53.UUCP (Ron Thompson) (10/07/85)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Is anyone using Writer's Workbench from AT&T on a regular basis? > 2. I would like to know how useful this software is and what types of > applications people are finding for it. > 3. I am also interested in knowing what types of customized > standards people have established for WWB and whether there has been any > testing of modifying the lex files for analysis of other languages. > 4. Has there been any porting to micros for general layperson testing? > 5. Does anyone who does not now have WWB wish they could? > 6. And as a corollary, is there anyone distributing binary as opposed to > source licenses for WWB? > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry I didn't see the original request for this, I would like to add some comments. I have used WWB for a couple of years on many of my documents, especially the external ones. WWB has identified misspelled words I always thought I had spelled correctly. I nearly always follow the suggestions for revision. Each suggestion has to be considered independently and with the target of the document in mind. My spelling has improved but I still make the mistakes of using worn out phrases, etc.. I don't agree with some of the punctuation revisions suggested by WWB, though they are probably technically correct. (In particular whether the '.' goes outside the '"' or inside). I have reveiwed the pre-release of the Collegiate Edition. It seems to be a well thought out package, ideal for the creative writer's lab. I stripped the classroom parts off and moved it to a 3B5 for testing of the document analysis parts. Though still somewhat useful, the analysis is more tuned to essay style, as it should be, than technical. This package should really be a great help in spurring student interest in writing as well as a teacher's aid. I have recently ordered the standard WWB for my 3B5. I consider it a worthwhile package for programmers and technical writers alike. -- ............................................................................... | Ron Thompson AT&T Information Systems Customer Programming | | ..akgua!cpsc53!rt Atlanta, Georgia Services Center | | Opinions expressed are mine alone. | ...............................................................................
perlman@wanginst.UUCP (Gary Perlman) (10/09/85)
I have some comments about the Writer's Workbench software. Few, if any of these ideas are my own, but have been pointed out to me by others, so I'll take no credit, but will accept responsibility. I should point out that I am working with a knowledge of the System V software of 1984, and many of my criticisms may have been addressed. If so, someone "in the know" should follow up. The Writer's Workbench, WWB, is a collection of programs to aid writers. Although I use the programs, I think it is important to know their limitations. Despite having limitations, they can still be useful. My main reservations about WWB are: (1) The programs do not deal with what I think are primary variables affecting writing quality, which is what WWB is supposed to help me with. WWB tools, notably the "style" program and its readability scores, ignore structure (sections, paragraphs, lists, tables) and look at sentences. Certainly, sentence structure is important, and long sentences and long words make a text harder to read, but the outline structure of a document is primary for me. No, I don't have any data on this. I am always struck by the paradox of how style uses lists--you know, those structural entities showing a greater depth of knowledge communicated in a clear format--style cuts them out because they make the text look like long sentences. The style program is good for Reader's Digest kind of text, but for technical text, I think it is useless. (2) The programs can give people a false sense of security. Some people write text and run the programs and get that warm feeling when they have removed all the spelling errors found by spell (spellwwb) and get a good readability score. WWB is dumb enough (or general enough if you prefer that term) to work on C programs, implying that you can do well with WWB but still have complete garbage. This is not a problem with WWB, it is a problem that some users of WWB do not understand its limitations and think it is a solution. WWB is an aid. (3) WWB is written for the troff text formatter, mainly in that it uses deroff to remove the formatting commands. It also assumes that you are using the -mm or -ms macro packages (used in part to remove those nasty lists). To use the WWB tools with something like Scribe or TeX, you need to write your own pre-processor. (4) The programs tend to run slowly. They are hacks in the worst sense in that they contain the cruddiest code and have the most ugly and undecipherable output formats of any UNIX programs. WWB is still a useful sidekick for writers. I find problems after I have edited a document to my satisfaction: doubled words, spelling errors, punctuation problems, and wordy phrases. I never use sexist language. Besides being useful, WWB is cheap and private. When I give a draft of a paper to others for comments, they do not spend their valuable time to point out low level blunders I should have caught. And hopefully, they do not need to know that I can't spell, or that I tend to use a very unique number of meaningless phrases in drafts. :-) Still, I find myself in a bind when I am told by WWB programs that something is wrong and I disagree. I know I am right, but I wish the programs would stop telling me that "man" is sexist when I am writing about the UNIX "man" command. I know that "sexist" is just pattern matching, as it does in "diction", but I wish I could get it to shut up. The programs are good at pointing out problems, but not so good about suggesting solutions. This is especially true for the style program. You are told that your document has a readability grade level of 18, but you are only helped out by being presented with the long sentences. So you madly chop up your sentences to make them more readable and style is made happy. Writing to "make the grade" sometimes works, but better organization might be a better strategy. The programs in WWB I like the most are ones that help me view my documents in ways that are difficult for me. The diction program highlights (in a pathetic way, by bracketing) candidate meaningless words and phrases. The punct program checks my punctuation faster than I can. The analyses from WWB that I am most uncomfortable with, as though you could not tell yet, are ones that try to make quality judgements. The output from the wwb program (saturation bombing with most of the WWB programs) seems authoritative as it tells me that in my C program, I have appropriately limited the number of passives, and that my readability grade level is good for "this type of document." What a charade. What I would like to see come out of the WWB group is some software for novel views of documents, and less cosmetic adjustments like in the wwb program (I would not mind some cosmetic adjustments to their output formats). This was one of the motivations behind me and Tom Erickson writing some tools for structural displays (not analysis) of documents. (Oh, so here is the self-plug!) My "headings" program prints out a section and paragraph headings outline for troff documents using any macro package--in about 100 times the speed of the WWB org program. Our "punc" program prints out punctuation graphs of sentences so that you can view their length and structure in novel ways. Here are the punc graphs for this paragraph: ____________________,_________(___________). _________________(__)__. (_,_____-_!) _"_"________________--___________. _"_"___________________. You can read more about our views of graphical abstractions of technical documents and how they differ from some of the WWB measures in: Perlman, G., & Erickson, T. D. (1983) Graphical Abstractions of Technical Documents. Visible Language, 17, 380-389. Perlman, G., & Erickson, T. D. (1984) Abstraction Program Aids To Documentation. Asterisk, 10:2, 13-16. You can get reprints by sending me your postal address. If there is demand, I may post the programs to net.sources. -- Gary Perlman Wang Institute Tyngsboro, MA 01879 (617) 649-9731 UUCP: decvax!wanginst!perlman CSNET: perlman@wanginst