bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) (12/02/89)
FORM is really neat. I have a complaint about the manual. First
of all, it is formatted in 6x7in format. When printed on 8.5x11in paper
a lot of paper goes to waste. This really annoyed me considering how essential
it is that we stop wasting natural resources. The PD version of the manual
is a TeX dvi file and most people would print that on letter sized paper,
so why couldn't the author have included '\vsize = 10in \hsize = 7.5in'
before he TeXed it so we don't waste paper. Also, the manual lacks
inclusive speech and inclusive speech is important as we attempt to include
women in our language (and ultimately as recognized members of society).
I realize this doen't really belong in this newsgroup, but the comments
are directly related to a product of this newgroup - since the computer
industry spawns documentation, we must strive for these ideals: conservation
of paper (in manuals, printouts, etc) and inclusive speech.
Brett L Maraldo
--
-------- Unit 36 Research ---------
"Alien Technology Today"
bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
{uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldosteve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (12/04/89)
In article <274@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) writes ... > ... the manual lacks >inclusive speech and inclusive speech is important as we attempt to include >women in our language (and ultimately as recognized members of society). Demanding that ANY written material be "politically correct" in the mind of every reader is impossible. And expecting documentation to actively serve an arbitrary set of external political goals is silly. Docs aren't political essays, and I surely hope they stay that way. I have a different problem with the Form documentation: TeX. Seriously, is a 430-kilobyte DVI file an efficient method of distributing docs? Especially since the number of STs actually running TeX is mighty small. I'm considering tossing the whole Form package into the trashcan rather than forwarding it to the Minnesota Atari ST user group. Think about it: Some semi-serious user spends an hour or so downloading and unarchiving the whole thing, only to discover that he (or she) can't even read the docs without obtaining several megabytes' worth of TeX crud and a college education in TeXwizardry. I'm not flaming anybody, just pointing out a practical problem. At some point the pain-in-the-butt factor exceeds the utility. On a (sort of) related subject, does anybody else find the shar'ed source code in comp.sources.atari.st to be a constant source of trouble? The shar format doubtless is an excellent solution for Un*x systems, but for non-Un*x sites, there is just enough variation in the formats to frustrate any attempts at automated unpacking. One of the TOS-based shar utilities that I use here has a bug that makes it double lines. Another can't handle shell archives that do not have a strippable character (usually X) prepended to each line. I almost always wind up having to repair the sharred sources or the resulting files with a text editor, and often it's easier just to split up the shell archive manually with MicroEMACS. Arggh! UUDecoding a .ZOO file is *so* much simpler. -- Steve Yelvington, up at the lake in Minnesota ... pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve (UUCP)
t68@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Jos Vermaseren) (12/04/89)
Concerning the format of the form.dvi file: It is a great paper saver if you happen to use civilized paper sizes. The size is A5. Two A5 pages make one A4 sheet. (Napoleon thought this out: A0 has a surface of 1 m^2 and the ratio's are 1/sqrt(2)). With some experimenting you can probably also put two A5 pages on a letter size page. Now what is inclusive speech? Should I have written the manual in fortran? Jos Vermaseren
avogel@ms.uky.edu (Andrew Lee Vogel) (12/05/89)
Since it's a topic of discussion: I was very pleased to find the document in dvi format, thanks.
koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (12/05/89)
In article <1103891319123100@thelake.UUCP> pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve writes: >Demanding that ANY written material be "politically correct" in the mind >of every reader is impossible. I thought that request was a bit odd, too. I assume (I can't read the docs either; more below) that the original poster was objecting to the use of the genderless "he." Well, whether he likes it or not, that's the way English is. Substituting "he/she" (or "she/he") all over the place isn't a good solution. >I have a different problem with the Form documentation: TeX. Seriously, is >a 430-kilobyte DVI file an efficient method of distributing docs? >Especially since the number of STs actually running TeX is mighty small. Heck, I couldn't even print the thing out on my Sun. Distributing straight TeX documentation would be fine, as the TeX source is at least very human- readable, but DVI struck me as a bit silly as well. (If you're wondering why I posted it anyway, I have a hands-off policy about that sort of thing.) If someone has the software to convert the thing into PostScript, please mail me a copy. I don't have time to set up all the TeX stuff on my machine, and as Sun is a *roff house, nobody around me has it already. >On a (sort of) related subject, does anybody else find the shar'ed source >code in comp.sources.atari.st to be a constant source of trouble? >UUDecoding a .ZOO file >is *so* much simpler. When I started moderating comp.sources.atari.st, I put all the sources in uuencoded arcfiles (check the early volume 1 entries on panarthea). I got about twenty complaints from people at various sites, demanding that I use shar instead for various reasons. Since that seemed to be what the public wanted, I switched over. Frankly, shar is often more of a pain for me, too, as (posting rules notwithstanding) sources are frequently sent to me as arc or zoo files, which I have to repack as sharfiles. (Such sources tend to sit in my queue for a while.) What do people think? Should I switch back to uue'd sources? --- " !" - Marcel Marceau Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st sgrimm@sun.com ...!sun!sgrimm
bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) (12/05/89)
In article <574@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> t68@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Jos Vermaseren) writes: >Concerning the format of the form.dvi file: >It is a great paper saver if you happen to use civilized >paper sizes. The size is A5. Two A5 pages make one A4 sheet. Granted. But here in North American we are stuck with stupid sizes like letter and legal. >Now what is inclusive speech? Should I have written the manual >in fortran? I hope you are kidding, but in case you aren't: Inclusive speech includes both the male and female genders. Instead of saying 'Go to the doctor, he'll fix you up' you must say 'Go to the doctor, he or she will fix you up.' Brett L Maraldo -- -------- Unit 36 Research --------- "Alien Technology Today" bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo
esp_05@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Stdnt 05) (12/05/89)
A note on inclusive speech: "s/he," "he or she," "they," et al when referring to a single person of ambiguous sex are all incorrect in standard American English. I don't make the rules, I just quote them. Actually, I support them, as "he" is much less awkward than stylistic variants. There are some specialized styles, such as the American Psychological Association, which insist on "he or she," but otherwise this is incorrect. And I don't think that these documents should require any TeX knowledge at all, aka a normal ASCII text version should also be included, as TeX really does require quite a bit of mastery, and uses quite a bit of computer resources. Eric
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (12/05/89)
In article <298@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) writes: > > >Now what is inclusive speech? Should I have written the manual > >in fortran? > > I hope you are kidding, but in case you aren't: Inclusive speech > includes both the male and female genders. Instead of saying 'Go to the > doctor, he'll fix you up' you must say 'Go to the doctor, he or she will ^^^^^^^^^ Shouldn't that be "she or he" ?? :-) > fix you up.' > > Brett L Maraldo > a a a a a a a a a a a a -- Richard E. Covert (covertr@gtephx) (602) - 581-4652 | AG Communications Systems, Phoenix AZ | UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!covertr
dav@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (William David Haas) (12/06/89)
In article <13401@s.ms.uky.edu> avogel@ms.uky.edu (Andrew Lee Vogel) writes:
I love TeX, TeX is wonderful, TeX is all powerful, TeX makes the best manuals.
(notice, no smileys!)
But.... you shouldn't distribute the .dvi. If someone can print the dvi file
he probably can create it given the .tex file. I would suggest including
raw text doc file - ain't pretty but it works.
.tex file - those who want to create and print the dvi file can
this makes the distribution smaller and is just as useful
And I also don't like source files in shar format for the st. zoo the thing.
When I get the source, I un shar it, ark it, and include it with the binaries
that usually have just been posted to the binaries group.
davfischer-michael@CS.YALE.EDU (Michael Fischer) (12/08/89)
In article <34894@grapevine.uucp> koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) writes: >>On a (sort of) related subject, does anybody else find the shar'ed source >>code in comp.sources.atari.st to be a constant source of trouble? >>UUDecoding a .ZOO file >>is *so* much simpler. > >When I started moderating comp.sources.atari.st, I put all the sources in >uuencoded arcfiles (check the early volume 1 entries on panarthea). I got >about twenty complaints from people at various sites, demanding that I >use shar instead for various reasons. Since that seemed to be what the >public wanted, I switched over. Frankly, shar is often more of a pain for >me, too, as (posting rules notwithstanding) sources are frequently sent to >me as arc or zoo files, which I have to repack as sharfiles. (Such sources >tend to sit in my queue for a while.) > >What do people think? Should I switch back to uue'd sources? I'd much rather have a UUD encoded .arc or .zoo file. They're much easier to decode, and I can do the decoding reliably on my ST, whereas I generally decode shar files on a Unix machine. Also, I am another person that goes through the nuisance of pulling the sources off comp.sources.atari.st, the binaries off of comp.binaries.atari.st, decodes them both, and finally combines the result into a single .arc or .zoo file. It would be nice if this process could be streamlined. ================================================== | Michael Fischer | | Arpanet: <fischer-michael@cs.yale.edu> | | Bitnet: <fischer-michael@yalecs.bitnet> | | UUCP: <fischer-michael@yale.UUCP> | ==================================================
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (L.J.Dickey) (12/10/89)
In article <17700@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> dav@eleazar.dartmouth.edu a sensible fellow named William David Haas writes: | But.... you shouldn't distribute the .dvi. If someone can print the dvi | file | he probably can create it given the .tex file. I would suggest including | | raw text doc file - ain't pretty but it works. | .tex file - those who want to create and print the dvi file can | | this makes the distribution smaller and is just as useful ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This makes it MORE useful. It is a big advantage to be able to extract examples of code from the text. A second advantage (for me) is that if I chose to do so, I may select a style that prints a different size of page, more closely approximating a size of paper available to me. (A5 is not one of them). -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@water.UWaterloo.ca ljdickey@water.BITNET ljdickey@water.UUCP ..!uunet!watmath!water!ljdickey ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu
rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (12/14/89)
Frankly, I think inclusive speech is stupid. If women are so unsure of their worth that they can't accept tradition, then use female speech. When you are trying to get facts conveyed (gee, is that what English docs are trying to do), it seems sort of silly to keep putting he/she or "he or she" into the document. By using female speech, I mean just say "She engineered the computer" instead of "He...". Even though the percentage of female students in engineering is extremely low in the U.S., and this would be less accurate, I think I could accept this. I'd rather not have to even think about it, though. By tradition, "he" usually means "he or she" anyways. P.S. On a side note, I think that the traditions destoyed by equal rights movements have had a substantial negative effect on our country. Wives aren't home with the kids anymore, people are sleeping together instead of getting married and settling down (it used to be common for women to take care of the childen, but "professional' women don't have time for this). There used to be a job for the male of nearly every family, now there are some families with the husband and wife working (kids getting ignored) and others where neither can get a job. I could continue on to discuss delinquency of children, and future repercussion, but this is the WRONG notesfile for political statements. I welcome flaming hot mail at rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu