jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) (08/03/89)
From article <2147@randvax.UUCP>, by urban@randvax.UUCP (Mike Urban): > > At the risk of belaboring a point that has been made several times, > it would be more useful to work with an experienced professional > in layout design in order to create the Troff macros or LaTeX document > style for your Generic Barbarian novel or whatever. When everyone > becomes an amateur layout designer, the result is inevitably a > great deal of amateurish layout. > -- > > Mike Urban > urban@rand.ORG With apology to Leslie Lamport, let's go back about 3000 years. In that era wouldn't the paragraph above have said: "It is more useful to work with an experienced scribe in forming your letters in order to create a shipping list, business report, or whatever. When everyone becomes an amateur literate, the result is inevitably a great deal of amateurish literature." I guess I'm thinking of examples from Hofstadter where fonts (even layout) change to enhance meta information in text. Original handwritten notes had this capacity--why not computer text? If amateur literature (letters, email, etc.) has proven useful, couldn't a case be made for amateur layout. Perhaps 3000 years from now it will be common to "write" with expression; maybe we'll have to learn meta-literacy. -- John Campbell ...!arizona!naucse!jdc CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.bitnet unix? Sure send me a dozen, all different colors.
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (08/06/89)
In article <2147@randvax.UUCP> urban@randvax.UUCP (Mike Urban) writes: > At the risk of belaboring a point that has been made several times, > it would be more useful to work with an experienced professional > in layout design in order to create the Troff macros or LaTeX document > style for your Generic Barbarian novel or whatever. When everyone > becomes an amateur layout designer, the result is inevitably a > great deal of amateurish layout. And in article <1627@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) replies: > I guess I'm thinking of examples from Hofstadter where fonts (even layout) > change to enhance meta information in text. Original handwritten notes had > this capacity--why not computer text? If amateur literature (letters, email, > etc.) has proven useful, couldn't a case be made for amateur layout. > Perhaps 3000 years from now it will be common to "write" with expression; > maybe we'll have to learn meta-literacy. Did Hofstadter typeset Godel, Escher, Bach? Without professional help? I think you've got this backwards. When you have no need for novel layout, use something like unmodified LaTeX. If you do nave a need, it's best to consult a professional (or an expert amateur) so that you don't make a hash of it. It is a very common failing that new users of troff or TeX all of the sudden want to do all kinds of wild and fancy things. Simple is usually better, but it takes some people a long time to catch on. Some never do. "a great deal of amateurish layout" is the inevitable result.
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (08/07/89)
>In article <2147@randvax.UUCP> urban@randvax.UUCP (Mike Urban) writes: >>.... When everyone becomes an amateur layout designer, the result is >>inevitably a great deal of amateurish layout. In article <1627@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes: >With apology to Leslie Lamport, let's go back about 3000 years. In that >era wouldn't the paragraph above have said: > >"It is more useful to work with an experienced scribe in forming your >letters in order to create a shipping list, business report, or whatever. >When everyone becomes an amateur literate, the result is inevitably a >great deal of amateurish literature." Indeed, it might have; and it would have been correct. Not because amateurs never have good ideas---this is clearly false---nor because amateurs invariably do things wrong, but rather because amateurs are, well, amateurs: often they do not know all the rules, and more important, the reasons for those rules. Breaking tradition is not in and of itself a sin; but breaking it out of ignorance is certainly not a virtue. There is a great difference between breaking rules because you disagree with them and breaking them because you know no better. I myself disagree with many rules of typography, and I break them when I think the result is clearer communication. I do try, though, to obey them when the result is otherwise. And communication depends on the hearer as well as the speaker, the reader as well as the writer: if you do something unexpected it is likely to cause the reader to stumble. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
pk@tut.fi (Kellom{ki Pertti) (08/07/89)
On 3 Aug 89 15:15:58 GMT, jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) said:
John> this capacity--why not computer text? If amateur literature (letters, email,
John> etc.) has proven useful, couldn't a case be made for amateur layout.
[...]
John> With apology to Leslie Lamport, let's go back about 3000 years. In that
John> era wouldn't the paragraph above have said:
John> "It is more useful to work with an experienced scribe in forming your
John> letters in order to create a shipping list, business report, or whatever.
John> When everyone becomes an amateur literate, the result is inevitably a
John> great deal of amateurish literature."
Isn't that one of the reasons that people go to high school for: to
become at least moderately literate. I wouldn't have any objection to
amateur layout, if layout were as widely taught as composing text.
Amateur layout is ok for personal use, but for material that is to be
more widely distributed (like books) I'd much rather see a
professional do the job.
--
Pertti Kellom\"aki (TeX format) # Software will be a science when programmers
Tampere Univ. of Technology # stand on each other's shoulders instead
Software Systems Lab # of each other's toes cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (08/07/89)
>Isn't that one of the reasons that people go to high school for: to >become at least moderately literate. I wouldn't have any objection to >amateur layout, if layout were as widely taught as composing text. I don't know why people go to high school. As a university teacher, I can tell you want is not done in high school: teach basic literacy. Allegedly the University of California takes the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates. In my experience, one-third of these are utterly incapable of making coherent written statements on any subject. If the top 12.5 percent is that bad, what is the other 87.5 percent like!