chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (01/19/89)
R. P. C. Rodgers, M.D. makes some remarks concerning the relative merits of WYSIWYG doc-gen versus "batch mode": > 2) Although the psychological appeal of seeing a representation of the > final document are undeniable, there are costs associated with this: > for example, many WYSIWIG systems expose the user to delays while > reformatting on the fly. In a batch-mode environment, the user goes off > and does better things with his time while the actual formatting takes > place. With "real computers" this is no problem. A Sun running Frame Maker experiences no noticeable delay in formatting on the fly for most documents. The reason this occurs is that most editing causes only localized changes, and do not involve reflowing 100 pages of text, for example. Most changes never make it off the current page, and rarely go beyond the next page. Of course, there are pathological cases, and Frame lets you disable repagination for page ranges (they call it "freezing") until you are finished editing. TeX and troff are programming languages which are used to produce programs which, when "executed", produce a document. It has been my experience that those who are good programmers in traditional languages will be effective users of TeX and troff. Those who are not will use TeX and troff in a cookbook fashion and never exploit the real power of the package. All the problems of programming (debugging, source level formatting, learning curves, implementation vagaries, structured editors) accompany TeX and troff. I find it interesting that several users of tooltool have sent me tooltool specifications which construct a windowed TeX document "builder" which hides much of the complexity of TeX. This shows (at least to me) that there are fundamental problems with batch mode doc-gen tools which users would like to avoid. In our department, our secretaries produce some very impressive figures and documents using Frame. I can assure you (and my coworkers reading this will agree) that none of these people could produce a TeX or troff macro to accomplish anything near what they regularly do with Frame, even if you held a gun to their head. The WYSIWYG interface frees their creativity to go beyond anything they ever did with batch doc-gen tools. > I work alongside people who produce our monthly departmental newsletter, and > it is clear that for that activity, the Mac-based WYSIWYG system they are > using is well suited. It is equally clear to us that for the grant proposals, > technical manuals, and manuscripts we produce, our present troff- and > TeX-based tools are better suited than any of the WYSIWYG systems we have > used, which include both The Publisher and FrameMaker. For anything requiring multiple text flows, and variations in layout, WYSIWYG systems are always a win. I also believe that WYSIWYG is a win for proposals, manuals, and manuscripts. I produced a 90 page language reference manual with well over 50 syntax diagrams. How could I draw them in TeX or troff? With Frame, I drew them on the fly, as I wrote, and saw each page, as it would be printed, right on my screen. How can TeX or troff provide me with this capability? It is often the case that proposals, manuals, and manuscripts need illustrations. I contend, in fact, that they would have many more ilustrations if people would free themselves from the tools mindset which precludes rapid production of line and bitmap artwork in a document. WYSIWYG tools release an author from the bounds of writing "document programs" to a new level of looking at a blank page as a canvas which is to be painted with words and pictures which convey ideas. People like the structure of TeX, and its ability to define the appearance of documents before you begin writing. Any good WYSIWYG tool provides the same capability. Frame lets you contruct document templates, complete with catalogs of various paragraph formats. Within my department, we have complete templates for two-column technical reports, memos, 35mm slides, viewgraphs, personal letters, camera ready copy enlarged 28%, draft documents, "submission" format for technical conferences, and the like. On more than one occasion, I have taken a document from submission form to two-column internal report form to camera ready copy form with a minimum of headache. As stated, a flexible attitude is important. But so is the ability to see beyond what you are used to, and to experiment with the capabilities of new technology. Don't let excuses like "but we're used to TeX" bind you! I have seen the future, and it is WYSIWYG! Chuck Musciano Advanced Technology Department Harris Corporation (407) 727-6131 ARPA: chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com [[ People also like the extreme care TeX takes to make line breaks. It makes the documents look positively beautiful to a typesetter's eyes. Nothing says that such an algorithm cannot be incorporated in something like Frame, of course. The only excuse for troff is "but we're used to it"! --wnl ]]