[comp.sys.mac] MS Word 3.0 and LaserWriter 4.1

rs4u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU.UUCP (06/17/87)

Sorry gang, that's LaserWriter 4.0, not 4.1....

I used MS Word 3.0 today, and found much to my disgust that I have
no access AT ALL to the new features of the LaserWriter driver such
as the larger print area, precision bitmap scaling, and so forth. The
Page Setup box gives the old settings (from 3.1). Where does Microsoft
get off replacing the standard print dialogs with their own?

Isn't the phrase "Consistent User Interface" in their dictionary???

Harrumph.

		--Rich

briand@tekig4.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (06/18/87)

>I used MS Word 3.0 today, and found much to my disgust. . .
>
>Isn't the phrase "Consistent User Interface" in their dictionary???
>
>Harrumph.

Of course the phrase "Consistent User Interface" is in their dictionary! They
are trying very hard to be consistent with the IBM PC! Remember WordStar? Now,
why do you think that they have so many key-click "equivalents," some that are
"equivalent" to features addressable in no other way?

From day one, Microsoft has "freely" interpreted the Mac's user interface
guidelines in their own way. Unfortunately their commercial success has made
them insufferable on many fronts, this being only one. Try to get the details
of their DCA format implementation on Word 3.0, for example.

The trouble is, they'll keep doing it as long as they are commercially suc-
cessful. And that means, folks, that WE are the ones making them too big for
their britches. Well, IBM isn't helping, either, but that's to be expected,
isn't it? Don't buy from them if you don't like them. As for me, I'm going off
to investigate WriteNow!

As a (perhaps negatively) mitigating factor, Human Interface design is a VERY
tricky business, and is made worse by the fact that EVERYONE, and I mean EVERY-
ONE, considers themselves an expert in how their users should approach their
product. The less they have studied the nuances of the discipline, the more
convinced people are of their expertise in this area. It would seem to me that
MicroSoft's vaunted expert who designed the Word 3.0 should probably have had
a bit less self-assurance and a bit more information on what a Mac is. It's too
bad he got between the users and the truly wonderful capabilities that Word 3.0
has!

-- 
-Brian Diehm     (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
Tektronix, Inc.
briand@tekig4.TEK.COM   or  {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand  

evan@ndcheg.UUCP (06/19/87)

In article <cUpj3uy00WI8yAk0RI@andrew.cmu.edu>, rs4u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Richard Siegel) writes:
> 
> I used MS Word 3.0 today, and found much to my disgust that I have
> no access AT ALL to the new features of the LaserWriter driver such
> as the larger print area, precision bitmap scaling, and so forth. The
> Page Setup box gives the old settings (from 3.1). Where does Microsoft
> get off replacing the standard print dialogs with their own?

The standard Page Setup and Print dialog boxes are still available, but
they are implemented in what appears to be a non-standard way.  By
holding down the SHIFT key while selecting Page Setup of Print, the usual
dialog box appears.  It's not a very common procedure; it may not even
be documented, but I've heard that it works.

  Evan Bauman
  University of Notre Dame
  ..!seismo!iuvax!ndmath!ndcheg!evan

chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/19/87)

>Of course the phrase "Consistent User Interface" is in their dictionary! They
>are trying very hard to be consistent with the IBM PC! Remember WordStar? Now,
>why do you think that they have so many key-click "equivalents," some that are
>"equivalent" to features addressable in no other way?
>
>From day one, Microsoft has "freely" interpreted the Mac's user interface
>guidelines in their own way. Unfortunately their commercial success has made
>them insufferable on many fronts, this being only one.

Harumph indeed.  Commercial success may be making them insufferable (I don't
find them that way, personally, but whatthehell), but it is also usually an
indicator that something is being done right.

Look, there are some botches in Word 3.0 -- I'll agree with that.  There are
some places where it could be cleaned up.  It doesn't necessarily match the
Mac paradigms (but the reality is, most people have different views of what
the Mac paradigm is -- standard user interface is in the eye of the
beholder, more than not; just look at how all these applications define
their version of the standard!).  But nobody can show me a word processor
that has the same essential functionality of Word 3.0 that does it better
AND is shipping in the marketplace today AND matches the Mac interface. It
doesn't exist -- which doesn't mean it won't.  Someone will come and knock
Word 3.0 out of the water, just as Forethought took Microsoft File (remember
that?) and blew it away with FileMaker+.  But until that happens, you can
bitch all you want, but for all of its problems, Word 3.0 is the best there
is for the power WP user.

[[[submittor's note:  Now we can all sit down and argue about what the
essential functionality is so people can try to flame this posting. For me,
if it doesn't have: spell checking, style sheets, glossaries, a full range
of character formats including small caps, strikeout, and the standards,
significant control of page layout and formatting, and postscript
capability, I won't look at it.  Less powerful WP's may well handle their
less powerful tasks better, but a simpler program makes it easier to write a
simpler interface.  No arguing apples and oranges:  if the program doesn't
do what Word 3.0 can do to a significant degree, you can't use it to knock
Word.  And no vaporware need apply]]]

chuq (have fun..... heh-heh)


Chuq Von Rospach	chuq@sun.COM		Delphi: CHUQ

Now, where did my ex-wife put my Fairy Dust?

cosmos@druhi.UUCP (06/22/87)

MS Word is not in conformance with the MAC interface standard, for any of
those who haven't bought it yet and wonder.  Among other things, this means
that when Apple changes drivers a new release of Word is often needed to
access new features.  I think that this is what happens when you try to port
a large complex program from a "standard" environment to the MAC. 
Ron Guest
ihnp4!druhi!cosmos