ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) (10/27/89)
In article <TJFS.89Oct26095508@tadtec.uucp> tjfs@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) writes: >I've had problems with Word 4.0 crashing under MultiFinder on a 2 MB >Mac SE. The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no >bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?) Exactly! But then again, maybe the reason why its release was delayed for so long was to have a roomful of monkeys trying every possible combination of features. :-) Seriously though, even if Word 4.0 is bug-free, it doesn't mean that the program does things *right*. MS still have not completely solved one fundamental problem with Word---round-off/truncation error in their justification algorithm, so much so that 4.0's `fractional widths' still deserves the `farcical widths' nickname. You don't have to do terribly much to see this. Just type a whole paragraph containing a decent number of font changes between Times and Symbol, then select full justification. Look at that awful, ragged right margin! I've been at MS about this on and off for the past year (since 3.01 days) and I was very disappointed to see the problem still there. (There also used to be problems with footnote references too, but MS have fudged things so that it doesn't happen all the time now. But it is STILL there.) Moral: Don't use MS Word for technical writing. Try TeX/LaTeX instead (because it's brilliant, and usually almost free). I still use Word for straight prose and mickey-mouse tech writing because for that sort of work, it is still my preferred tool. Sigh. Ben Lian Dept of EE & CS, Uni of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc,mcvax,hplabs,nttlab}!munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Ph: 002-202380 Fax: 002-202713
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/27/89)
>Exactly! But then again, maybe the reason why its release was delayed for >so long was to have a roomful of monkeys trying every possible combination >of features. :-) Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let it whap away like a three-year-old would.... >Moral: Don't use MS Word for technical writing. Try TeX/LaTeX instead >(because it's brilliant, and usually almost free). Or use MS Word for your writing, and if the layout is important, use a layout program of some sort. That's why they exist... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) (10/28/89)
In article <35975@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk >Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse >movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let >it whap away like a three-year-old would.... I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now. >>Moral: Don't use MS Word for technical writing. Try TeX/LaTeX instead >>(because it's brilliant, and usually almost free). > >Or use MS Word for your writing, and if the layout is important, use a >layout program of some sort. That's why they exist... Yes, I agree. Horses for courses. BUT when I specify full justification, I expect AT LEAST reasonably flush right margins. For the example I gave previously (many font changes within a paragraph), MS Word doesn't even come close. Come to think of it, even for plain prose, the right margin isn't all that flush either...but I'm being picky now. Chuq is quite right. Word is NOT a typesetting program. Ben Lian Dept of EE & CS, Uni of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc,mcvax,hplabs,nttlab}!munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Ph: 002-202380 Fax: 002-202713
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/29/89)
>In article <35975@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk >>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse >>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let >>it whap away like a three-year-old would.... >I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could >almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my >day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now. I was serious. They told me about it when I called up to report the bug my cockatoo found in Word 3.01. (She does a good imiation of a monkey at a keyboard -- if she would stop eating the stupid mouse...) -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
6sigma@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (10/30/89)
In article <1083@diemen.cc.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes: |In article <35975@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: |>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk |>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse |>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let |>it whap away like a three-year-old would.... |I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could |almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my |day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now. I don't know what Microsoft is using, but I have an ancient DA called Monkey that does this, so it wouldn't surprise me any if Microsoft has the same thing.
neilh@microsoft.UUCP (Neil Hoopman) (10/30/89)
In article <36000@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>In article <35975@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse >>>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let >>>it whap away like a three-year-old would.... > >>I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could >>almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my >>day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now. > >I was serious. They told me about it when I called up to report the bug my >cockatoo found in Word 3.01. (She does a good imiation of a monkey at a >keyboard -- if she would stop eating the stupid mouse...) Oh, now come on Chuq! If Microsoft is using a "monkey", we're just following Apple's lead ;-). Check out Inside Macintosh Vol 1, Page 261: "Before the Macintosh was introduced, Macintosh Software Engineering created a special desk accessory of its own for testing Macintosh software. This desk accessory, which was based on the journaling mechanism, didn't use a file-- it generated events RANDOMLY, putting the Macintosh "through its paces" for long periods of time without requiring a user's attention." I looked around for the "monkey" desk accessory, but I couldn't find it. Being a Word tester, I'm qualified to say that even if this desk accessory existed, it was by no means the core of our testing strategy!! As for the spark of this conversation, fractional widths, I'll check it out and see what I can suggest... (Before people starting throwing sticks, rocks and small shrubberies at me, bear in mind that I read and respond to the net on my own time :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Hoopman - Microsoft Corp. uunet!microsoft!neilh ------------------------------ microsoft!neilh@uunet.UU.NET "Carpe Diem. Seize the day. microsoft!neilh@beaver.cs.washington.edu Make your lives extraordinary." ---------------------------------------- - Dead Poets Society Neil? Neil who? Posted what? When? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) (11/08/89)
In article <1989Nov3.141748.18511@iex.uucp> cramer@athens.UUCP (Bill Cramer) writes: >In article <1090@diemen.cc.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes: >>This follow-up really should be in comp.text, but since the thread started >>here.... >> >>In article <122912@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >>>In article <1082@diemen.cc.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes: >>> >>>For those who don't have to use justification, fractional widths does get >>>rid of the wide spaces between italicized words. Also all technical >>>writing does not imply mathematical/chemical etc. text using symbol font. >>>Some studies have shown that ragged right is preferable to justification >>>for readability. So why do people persist in using justification? >>> >seminars was on human interface issues. The issue of justification came >up then, and the opinion of the seminar teachers was that ragged right was >easier to read. Several of these teachers were published; the only one >I can remember off hand was the guy who wrote a common college text on >human interfaces -- "Interactive Graphic Interfaces" or something like >that. I think his name was "Foley". Sorry I can't come up with a more >exact reference -- they say the memory is the first thing to go (or was >it the second? :-) > >At any rate, (now I am digressing into my own opinion...), flush right >does indeed *look* prettier (IMHO). That does not necessarily mean that >flush right *reads* easier -- a BIG, BIG difference. The cleanest LOOKING >page (again, IMHO) is one set in 10 point times with 6 1/2 inch flush >right columns. It's neat, it's sweet, and it's damn hard to read more >than a page or two without stopping to rub your eyes and stare out the >window for a bit. Yes, of course! In addition to good hyphenation, I should have added that overall page design is important. Both ragged right and full justification are awful if (a) the leading is wrong and (b) the columns are too wide. White space must also be used carefully. A rough guide to how wide lines should be is to try to have between 10 to 12 words per line, or about 60 to 70 characters (including spaces). There are no hard and fast rules; one has to trust one's eye and experience. For example, with TeX's Computer Modern font, I like 12 point type on 13 point leading, and a line width of just under 150mm (sorry, we're metric down here). I could probably get away with 10 or 20mm more because Computer Modern has a wider pitch than, say, Times (at the same size). Incidentally, one other reason why I prefer TeX and Computer Modern is that the characters look better formed at the LaserWriter's 300dpi resolution. Times, Palatino, and other serifed and semi-serifed fonts are simply too subtle for a printer of such low resolution to render properly, particularly at anything under 14 points. In fact, it is positively pathetic compared to a Linotype at 1200dpi! But at USD 6.00 per A4 page, I can't afford to be too fussy! Really, page design is a difficult business. I'm only at amateur at it. So, call me a fool if you will, but I still say that flush right is NOT an ancient fad. Ben Lian Dept of EE & CS, Uni of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc,mcvax,hplabs,nttlab}!munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Ph: 002-202380 Fax: 002-202713