francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (04/17/91)
Professional writers: are you tired of word processors that don't do all the stuff that a professional needs, because they were written by people that were hopelessly clueless on the subject? Are you struggling with a program that doesn't quite fit your needs? Then let me know what you want! I'm planning to put together a word processor specifically aimed at professional writers. However, since I freely admit that the likelihood of my achieving this goal on my own is pretty low, I'd be perfectly happy to share the results of this survey with anybody who wants them. I'll probably post to comp.editors. I'd also appreciate hearing negative feedback, and stuff fuzzier than features (interface problems, for example). The idea for this project came from Jerry Pournelle's column: he's always talking about how nothing except Write (and not always even then) is just what he wants. I decided to try to fill the niche (and make the data available to others, who may have a better shot at succeeding :-). -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | What do you get if you multiply 6 by 9? | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | --Ultimate Question | \============================================================================/
tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) (04/18/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Apr16204241@daisy.zaphod.uchicago.edu> francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: > >Professional writers: are you tired of word processors that don't do >all the stuff that a professional needs, because they were written by >people that were hopelessly clueless on the subject? Are you >struggling with a program that doesn't quite fit your needs? Then let >me know what you want! The commercial product that claims to be the word processor for professionals is XyWrite. It *is* a good tool, in my opinion. Something to think about is the fact that writers are increasingly expected to submit diskettes instead of stacks of paper, thus cutting the costs of re-keying. I recently finished a book manuscript for Prentice Hall, and they made it very clear that they wanted a plain ASCII file. Most commercial word processors seem to try to be miniature publishing programs. It seems to me that an *editor* designed specifically for writers would be a good thing. Here are some ideas: -- A writer's editor should be able to swap large files to disk when necessary, so that multiple chapters of a large work can be loaded simultaneously, for cutting and pasting, and cross-checking. -- It should support regular expressions. -- It should be compact and fast; many writers do not own state-of-the-art equipment. -- Command bindings should be modifiable, but I'd suggest a default set that is hierarchical. Perhaps alt-F initiates all file commands, alt-B to start all block commands, and so forth. This is roughly the WordStar approach, although I don't care for their specific choices. -- Movement by textual units, such as sentences and paragraphs, should be possible. -- It would be interesting to be able to mark multiple blocks, perhaps with numbers or letters assigned to them, and to be able to manipulate them individually or conjointly. (E.g., swap blocks 3 and 5, that sort of thing). -- It must have a full undo capability. -- It should support automatic paragraph reformatting, with customizable definition of a paragraph. -- It should be able to switch between storing paragraphs as single lines or multiple lines, without losing the reformatting capability. -- The user should be able to decide how much auxiliary crap appears on-screen, such as ruler lines, function key templates, etc. -- For that matter, leave the function keys alone. Let the user decide what, if anything, they are to be used for. -- It should support fence matching, for writing in LaTeX or SGML, or Scribe. -- Automatic text substitution (there must be another term for this) is good. In XyWrite, for example, you can set the spelling checker to substitute things as you type, so that 'tt', for example, is automatically expanded to "Turing Test", or whatever. Nice feature which, judiciously used, can really speed up writing. Well, there are a few ideas for you. I hope you succeed with this. -- Todd Moody * tmoody@sjuphil.sju.edu "In what furnace was thy brain?" -- William Blake
palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (04/18/91)
For writers, a word processor should include 1) Infinite undo, even across sessions 2) a scrap stack, consisting of the the last, say, 100k that you have cut or modified 3) Automatic checkpointing 4) backup file creation on a second medium 5) The ability to recover as much as possible from corrupted files Do you sense a sort of trend to these features? It should be impossible to lose text unless you throw all of your disks down a garbage disposal. 6) Annotation mode. Go into this when you want to write (or speak, digitizers are cheap, at least for the Mac) a note to yourself. (usually I just change to an outline font to make my notes stand out) Then have the ability to jump from note to note (maybe as part of the search command) -- David Palmer palmer@gap.cco.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!gap.cco.caltech.edu!palmer "Operator, get me the number for 911" --Homer Simpson
sorensen@csuvax1.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Peter Sorensen) (04/18/91)
palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: >For writers, a word processor should include >Do you sense a sort of trend to these features? It should be impossible >to lose text unless you throw all of your disks down a garbage >disposal. Surely This would be a terrible limitation for people plagued by children and ex-lovers while they are working. The garbage disposal is the most likely (most often) place your disks will end up. -- Peter Sorensen sorensen@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au Murdoch University South Street Murdoch, W.A. 6150, Australia.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/18/91)
Oddly enough, a lot of the features you want are in "vi"... which was used for on-line documentation with a separate text-processing step as well as program editing. For example, type ":abbr tt Turing Test" then insert "can vi pass the tt?"... you'll get "can vi pass the Turing Test?". (vi as a word processor for professional writers. wottaconcept) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/19/91)
palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: > For writers, a word processor should include [...] > 6) Annotation mode. Go into this when you want to write (or speak, > digitizers are cheap, at least for the Mac) a note to yourself. > (usually I just change to an outline font to make my notes stand out) > Then have the ability to jump from note to note (maybe as part of the > search command) I ran into an interesting product on the Amiga that does this, called Thinker. It is a true hypertext product, and you can casually turn any set of words into an index to a note just by enclosing them in "<>", then make a note indexed by that set of words, and have it pop forward whenever you mouse click on the index phrase. I think a person could get very enamored with creating large works in a hypertext environment, especially the kind that require lots of research notes to make them work. The Thinker package has a second, single word index style that lets you attach the same note to _all_ occurances of the word, just by attaching it one place. This especially would be useful for being able to pop to the research annotation from anywhere in the document it might become useful. I've only played with this a little; I promised to put up a review in the Amiga newsgroups, but time keeps slipping by, so I'm not quite sure if this particular implementation is more than a toy, but it seemed to follow your (unquoted) robustness criteria at least somewhat, and of course, if you can change material to a nearly invisible indexed item, there's not much reason to ever actually delete anything anyway, so a change of style of work might change your vulnerability to lost text. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
sik@grosz.esd.sgi.com (Seth Katz) (04/19/91)
I'm a writer. Why do I need this thread in rec.arts.fine? Anyone see the JP Witkin show in SF or the Independent Group show in Berkeley? Great stuff. =s --- "I've got a 7 year old owner of a Madonna tape with a song about how much fun it is to be treated like a naughty girl(?!), and a 3 year old who thinks she can teach moral behavior to ducks." ma@hal.com
wachtel@canon.co.uk (Tom Wachtel) (04/19/91)
palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: >Do you sense a sort of trend to these features? It should be impossible >to lose text unless you throw all of your disks down a garbage >disposal. On the other hand, it would be very useful to have a feature which deletes everything twice a day, except for things you think about from time to time, no? :) -- Tom Wachtel (wachtel@canon.co.uk)
turner@lance.tis.llnl.gov (Michael Turner) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr18.183110.29423@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: > >> For writers, a word processor should include >[...] >> 6) Annotation mode. Go into this when you want to write (or speak, >> digitizers are cheap, at least for the Mac) a note to yourself. >> (usually I just change to an outline font to make my notes stand out) >> Then have the ability to jump from note to note (maybe as part of the >> search command) > >[....] >I think a person could get very enamored with creating large works in >a hypertext environment, especially the kind that require lots of research >notes to make them work. This brings up a possible point of controversy (he sez, casting his hook far out into the rapids): undoubtedly, many people will become so enamored, but is there an audience for reading hypertext works? Proponents are quick to point out how hypertextual flat text is: it has parenthetic comments (such as this cutely self-referential one), footnotes on the same page, footnotes at the ends of chapters and books, annotated bibliographies, quotes, indices, interpage references, tables of contents, figures and tables, and so on. I think for neutral kinds of reference material, they have a point. But how about the decidedly non-neutral process of making a point or telling a story? Rhetoric and narrative are indispensable for keeping your attention on what you're writing or reading. Does hypertext help or distract in this context? Or does it make any difference? My position: a rhetorical work that bristles with references works best when it tells a story or makes a point-by-point, linear argument. Densely-matted collections of references wouldn't ever suffice. Of course, when I try to convince the hypertext promoters I know of this, they tend to digress, distract, change the subject, free-associate, forget what they were saying, forget what *I* was saying, and avoid finishing sentences. --- Michael Turner turner@tis.llnl.gov
djheydt@garnet.berkeley.edu (04/21/91)
In article <_FTARF9@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Oddly enough, a lot of the features you want are in "vi"... which was used >for on-line documentation with a separate text-processing step as well as >program editing. For example, type ":abbr tt Turing Test" then insert >"can vi pass the tt?"... you'll get "can vi pass the Turing Test?". > >(vi as a word processor for professional writers. wottaconcept) >-- You betcha. Vi is what I have on my machine; vi is what I want. The "baby duck syndrome" comes into this too---vi is what I learned on. But vi *still* has everything I want except it would be nice if I could have windows and have two texts simultaneously visible so I could read from and write into one from the other more easily. Maybe someday Suns will get real cheap and I can get one. At work, however, I have to use Word on a Macintosh. Yuchh. *I HATE MICE* Does anybody know about a program I've heard of called Easy Access-- designed, so I'm told, for people with mobility problems in their hands--which completely eliminates the use of the Mouse on the Macintosh? All the Mac-related groups, stores, etc. I've called to inquire about the subject have been profoundly unable to believe (a) that such a package exists; (b) that anybody could possibly *want* not to use a mouse. None so blind as those that will not see . . . . Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt Province of the Mists djheydt@garnet.berkeley.edu Principality of the Mists University of California, Kingdom of the West Berkeley (EH&S doesn't care what I post, and anyway this is MY account.)
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr21.051427.14547@agate.berkeley.edu> djheydt@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes: > >The "baby duck syndrome" comes into this too---vi is what I learned >on. But vi *still* has everything I want except it would be nice >if I could have windows and have two texts simultaneously visible >so I could read from and write into one from the other more >easily. Maybe someday Suns will get real cheap and I can get one. Although I don't particularly like vi, and I prefer Macintosh word processing to anything available on the PC, I should point out that all my writing on Usenet done using vi in a terminal window. The Mac features I need are all there, since they're part of the interface. Need two texts open at the same time? I either use the buffered text in my terminal window (if I need reference to what has gone before), or I cut and paste text to a DA text editor, such as Sigma Edit. >Does anybody know about a program I've heard of called Easy Access-- >designed, so I'm told, for people with mobility problems in their >hands--which completely eliminates the use of the Mouse on the >Macintosh? Easy Access is part of current Macintosh system software, and has been for quite some time. Whether it has the features you want, however, is something I can't answer. The reason the Mac groups and stores you ask haven't been able to help you is that you're inquiring about Easy Access as if it were an independent software package. There also is at least one version of emacs available for the Mac, but I haven't seen it in quite some time. >None so blind as those that will not see . . . . Perhaps. But I can manipulate text with a mouse faster than anyone can with cursor keys. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, |"Most pernicious of French imports is the notion that mnemonic@eff.org | there is no person behind a text. Is there anything more (617) 864-0665 | affected, aggressive, and relentlessly concrete than a EFF, Cambridge, MA | Parisian intellectual behind his/her turgid text?"
Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM (04/21/91)
>>>>> On 21 Apr 91 05:14:27 GMT, djheydt@garnet.berkeley.edu said:
djheydt> on. But vi *still* has everything I want except it would be nice
djheydt> if I could have windows and have two texts simultaneously visible
djheydt> so I could read from and write into one from the other more
djheydt> easily.
I'd use GNU Emacs' "VIP" vi emulation then... [I know GNU Emacs runs on UNIX
and VMS at least. Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.*, comp.emacs] (GNU Emacs
doesn't insist you have a mouse either.)
djheydt> Does anybody know about a program I've heard of called Easy Access--
djheydt> designed, so I'm told, for people with mobility problems in their
djheydt> hands
I'm gathering the same disability information, and will send you what
I have so far.
--
Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM Naperville IL USA +1 708 979 6364rjohnson@vela.acs.oakland.edu (R o d Johnson) (04/22/91)
If y'all are just going to engage in the usual arguments about which
is your favorite editor, would you please edit your Newsgroups: line?
This thread may have been marginally relevant to rec.arts.books,
.fine, .sf-lovers, .poems, bit.listserv.literary and alt.prose when it
was still about what writers need in a word processor (though I doubt
it)--but now that it's degenerated to one of the longest smoldering
peat fires on the net, it's time to get it out of the literary groups.
When something is cross-posted as widely as this is, the original
author should set Followup-To:, but since he didn't do us the
courtesy, could the rest of you? Thanks.
--
Rod Johnson * rjohnson@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 650 2315
"Poetry ends like a rope" --Jack Spicerken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) (04/22/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Apr16204241@daisy.zaphod.uchicago.edu> francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes:
:I'd also appreciate hearing negative feedback, and stuff fuzzier than
:features (interface problems, for example).
I would say that some of the things I would want are functionality,
consistency, customizing, and performance (gee, doesn't everyone?).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functionality: for starters, the ability to make symbolic references to
page numbers, sections, figures, heading sections, anything. A word
processor that does not have symbolic references just isn't useable
for anything that is more than 2 pages long. Another part of functionality
is to make the interface more high level. Look at SGML or MicroSoft
Word 'style sheets' for examples. These provide ways of making it easy
to provide a standardized set of parameters for things like indenting,
fonts, paging, etc. It was truely a pain in the ass several years ago to go
through every paragraph in a report and take off the right justification
because the instructor found he didn't like right justification. SGML
markups would help make the conversion a lot easier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency: MicroSoft Word used to be my favorite editor to pick on
because it had so much wrong in its interface design. Most of the
following examples of problems have been fixed, but a few still remain:
You could use the arrow keys on the text screen but you had to use
the space bar on the menus.
You most of the time had to use the space bar to go through the various
options, but sometimes you HAD to use the tab key.
When you load a file, you could hit f1 to get a list of the files, but
it still does not let you program a file extension (at least not that I
have found). (The default is fine as long as you want all word files with
'.DOC' as a suffix, but I use '.WRD' to seperate word files from real doc
files.)
Certain fields will let you enter characters where only numbers are permitted.
There is no error detect, the program just barfs its guts. Furthermore
blanks in some fields are legal. Here we have a consistency problem, you
must use blanks to goto the next field, but sometimes the blanks instead
go into the field you are currently in!
You can now use arrow keys to go through menu items, sometimes, but to
choose the items on the particular item (for example format-paragraph-
justification) you MUST use the space bar to choose, arrow keys don't
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customizing: here is one place where Xedit shows its teeth, its got SO
MANY bloody customizing facilities that I doubt anyone knows what they
all do. BUT: I think it is impossible to truely anticipate ANYTHING
the user may want. Instead provide a REAL macro language with the
capability to do anything the user can do, as well as stuff arb data
to the screen. When I say REAL macro language, I mean one where one
can put if/then/else statements in (vi's :map doesn't cut it). In that
way, the user can provide missing/custom facilities that you may not have
anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, in my opinion, no text processor around fulfils all the above requirements.
Granted, I have not tried all the text processors in the world :-). The
environment where I do the best work currently is IBM's VM XEDIT and
their SCRIPT/GML package. In spite of having to work with an ancient
3270 screen, it allows me to get the work done faster there than any
other package I have tried to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:then) is just what he wants. I decided to try to fill the niche (and
:make the data available to others, who may have a better shot at
:succeeding :-).
Gonna publish the results of all this discussion?
Kenneth Ng
"No problem, this is how you make it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNGlsc@chryse.Eng.Sun.COM (Lisa S Chabot) (04/23/91)
On a less serious note: Polly Frost's "Turbotome", which appeared in The New Yorker in 1985, is reprinted in _Womens_Glib_ (a book with lots of other funny things as well). [Turbotome's got everything I want in a word processor...wonder if I can get it for the Mac.] -- It is dreadful to think that other people's grandchildren may one day rise up and call one amiable.
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) (04/23/91)
>Functionality: for starters, the ability to make symbolic references to >page numbers, sections, figures, heading sections, anything. Yow -- sounds like Scribe. >Consistency: MicroSoft Word used to be my favorite editor to pick on With Scribe, you can use the editor of your choice. > Instead provide a REAL macro language with the >capability to do anything the user can do, as well as stuff arb data >to the screen. When I say REAL macro language, I mean one where one >can put if/then/else statements in (vi's :map doesn't cut it). In that >way, the user can provide missing/custom facilities that you may not have >anticipated. Wow -- Scribe again. My point isn't to hype Scribe, but to point out that "WYSIWYG" isn't all that it's cracked up to be. -- -- datri@convex.com
hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) (04/24/91)
In <1991Apr22.145525.10150@njitgw.njit.edu> ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) writes: >I would say that some of the things I would want are functionality, >consistency, customizing, and performance (gee, doesn't everyone?). Some people argue vehemently *against* customizing, claiming that (1) Many users want to process words, rather than editing their Preferences files. (2) If the user can't reconfigure it, the designer must spend quite some time finding the optimal configuration (before hard coding it). Packages that you can endlessly customize tend to come with a lousy configuration and the claim that the user is going to reconfigure it anyway. (3) You can't help other users if their Preferences file is too different from yours, and they can't help you. And then there are all sorts of trade-offs. Sometimes, I'm willing to sacrifice some functionality if it buys me performance. Sometimes I'm willing to sacrifice consistency if it buys me functionality. For instance, vi's regexp syntax is pretty inconsistent, but I wouldn't want to miss the functionality. For the rest, I agree with Ken. -- Have a nice day, Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl
jkimble@unislc.uucp (Jim Kimble) (04/24/91)
tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) writes: > > > I recently finished a book manuscript for Prentice Hall, and they made it > very clear that they wanted a plain ASCII file. I would like a word processor to be able to read in lots and lots and lots of other software's formats; being able to save in those formats would be another big plus in my book. I wrote a book about two years' ago on modems and solicited input from folks and ended up with a pile of diskettes containing documents/research/etc saved in formats ranging from WordPerfect to uSoft Word to PFS:Write..!! It would have been nice to load the disks without having to convert them first[*]. On the subject of converting word processing documents, I bought the program Word For Word (about $50) and was *very* impressed with it. WFW converts between almost every popular DOS format you can think of and even preserves the underlines, bold text, centering, etc. (Appologies if this has already been discussed to death). Hmmmmm...I guess most publishers don't want text in troff/nroff format. ;-) -- --Jim Kimble, jkimble@bally.bally.com Yet Another UNIX Insultant sun!unislc!jkimble "ALPO is 99 cents a can. That's over SEVEN dog dollars!"
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (04/26/91)
Written in article <FRANCIS.91Apr16204241@daisy.zaphod.uchicago.edu>
by francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu:
> Professional writers: are you tired of word processors that don't do
> all the stuff that a professional needs, because they were written by
> people that were hopelessly clueless on the subject? Are you
> struggling with a program that doesn't quite fit your needs? Then let
> me know what you want!
Well, I'm no professional writer, yet, but I _do_ have some ideas:
Mouse support? Look at how most s/w for the Apple Macintosh works.
Word Perfect has mouse support, but it's an afterthot, so you can't
easily select a word or sentence. I like double-clicking a word.
I don't remember if this is availble on Mac's, but by extension you
should be able to SHIFT-double-click a sentence, or ALT-double-click a
paragraph. This speeds the work nicely.
Automatic knowledge of where spaces go around words and sentences? For
example, if I double-click a word at the end of the sentence and CUT it,
the WP should move the period up against the previous word. If it's not
at the end of the sentence, just close up to one single space.
Then I should be able to PASTE that word somewhere else, with the spaces
figured out. The way most WP's work now, you must remember whether CUT
brought along the space _before_ or _after_ the word, and take that into
considertion when you PASTE it. Ie., if CUT brings the space _before_
the word, you must PASTE with the cursor _before_ the new space. If you
place the cursor _after_ the new space, you'll end up with two spaces
before the word, and none after.
The same problem exists for phrases and sentences. Somehow the WP must
treat white-space as delimiters which are more than mere characters.
How about a built-in spelling and grammer checker to find out the
mistakes I make when I make? Or sometime after.
Cliche-detector? That would fit like a glove!
Verbosity-detector? Something like that which could automatically
analyze my text and put up a flag, some bold-font, marginal notes or
other such nonsense, in order to indicate the words I could eliminate
from a given sentence and still have the original meaning that I
intended to put down on paper, without all the excess baggage that's so
easy to let slip into my writing.
Automatic formatting to standard manuscript styles? That is, I don't
want to have to figure out how to print double-spaced, 10 pitch, one
inch margins, which is what most editors require for submissions.
The default formatting for every word processor in existance is always
something which isn't used by a single soul in the universe. No matter
who you are or what you're writing, you've got to figure out how to set
the damn thing up. It would be nice if it came out perfect without any
setup at all, outside of selecting _which_ standard format, then leave
the learning curve to special situations.
Actually, now that I think about it, this is a real bitch for me. Every
time I start up with a new word processor, or an old one at a new
location, I have to waste a good half-day setting the damn thing so that
the output is at least acceptable.
The defaults are always things like _no_ margins, _no_ headers, _no_ tab
positions or tabs at every 8 spaces (vs. every 1/2 inch, what they
should be for standard writing), etc.etc.etc. I'm surprised they don't
default to _no_printout!!_
OK, enuff bitching, go make my new word processor!
--
Alvin ===== asylvain@felix.UUCP ===== hplabs!felix!asylvain =====
"hplabs!felix!asylvain"@uunet.uu.net
(I always try to respond to mail, if possible. If you don't hear back
from me, try changing "hplabs" to "ccicpg," "fiuggi," or "lawnet.")ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) (05/01/91)
In article <3097@wn1.sci.kun.nl> hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes: :In <1991Apr22.145525.10150@njitgw.njit.edu> ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) writes: :>I would say that some of the things I would want are functionality, :>consistency, customizing, and performance (gee, doesn't everyone?). :Some people argue vehemently *against* customizing, claiming that :(2) If the user can't reconfigure it, the designer must spend quite some : time finding the optimal configuration (before hard coding it). : Packages that you can endlessly customize tend to come with a lousy : configuration and the claim that the user is going to reconfigure : it anyway. In my opinion, the ability to customize is NO EXCUSE for bad defaults. That's like selling a car with adjustable brakes with the default set to NO brakes! :(3) You can't help other users if their Preferences file is too different : from yours, and they can't help you. Sure you can, have them send you their conf files and you try it out. BESIDES, if you are helping other users with YOUR product, YOU SHOULD KNOW what it should do under ANY circumstance. :And then there are all sorts of trade-offs. Sometimes, I'm willing to :sacrifice some functionality if it buys me performance. Sometimes I'm :willing to sacrifice consistency if it buys me functionality. For :instance, vi's regexp syntax is pretty inconsistent, but I wouldn't :want to miss the functionality. Oh, and there is one *BIG* peeve I've had more and more in recent years: Making the application "pretty" as opposed to functional. One VERY disturbing trend that I have seen in recent years is to make the application pretty as opposed to functional. For example: one application simulates a Roladex. Ok, that is fine, give the user a conventional frame of reference. And I noticed all the pretty graphics of getting the various pages of the Roladex to prettily scroll by as it goes to the requested person. And I noticed the extreme detail to the EXACT outline of a Roladex card, including the two notches cut in the bottom of the card image. Oh boy, very pretty. Let's try to search, I can search by last name, ok. By why can't I search by first name? Or by phone number? Or by address? Or by name fragment? Or by state or zip code? Oh, because on a REAL Roladex you can't! So I guess the author's motivation is to not only use a Roladex as a model for the program, but he chose TO LIMIT YOU TO WHAT YOU CAN DO ON A REAL ROLADEX!!!! (So what the hell is the use of the bloody computer!?!?!?!?!) (FLAME MODE ON) Gee, if I REALLY wanted to simulate the action of a REAL Roladex, why don't the corners slowly wear down and wear off? Why don't cards start sticking out so that I have to push them back in with the mouse? Why doesn't it simulate fellow workers removing entries without telling you? A real Roladex shouldn't even let me edit the entries, I should be forced to draw a line through the old entries and scribble the new entry in the border! (FLAME MODE OFF) Frankly, I do better with the old fashioned Kedit text editor and a flat file containing all my names and addresses. Am I the only one who wants computers to do more work as opposed to look pretty? Kenneth Ng "No problem, this is how you make it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) (05/02/91)
In article <1991Apr30.205205.6328@njitgw.njit.edu> ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) writes: >Oh, and there is one *BIG* peeve I've had more and more in recent years: >Making the application "pretty" as opposed to functional. [Rolodex emulator example, in which the rolodex model was used inappropriately, going so far as to restrict you to what a real rolodex can do, deleted.] Actually (though this has nothing to do with editors) this is a perfectly natural effect, and you can expect it to continue to apply for some time. (This is not to say you should approve, or even stand quietly by. Your reactions are up to you.) Whenever a new technology comes into existence, people spend an enormous amount of effort on making it look like previous technologies, with ridiculous (and often hilarious) results. It takes time, and often the retirement of those with inflexible minds, for the technology to acquire its own `natural' model. (Some would use the word `paradigm' here, but `paradigm' means `example': in particular, an example that is used to illustrate the underlying model.) For a long time automobiles were considered `horseless carriages' and much effort was put into making them look and act like carriages- without-horses. If someone had been able to figure out how to `blow out' electric lights, you would have had to pick up the chimney on your lamp, rather than turn the switch. The standard answer on picking up the telephone was once `Ahoy'. (People thought of telephones as speaking tubes, like those found on ships.) It all boils down to the fact that using an existing object as a reference model makes it easier to `think about' the new technology, but it also acts as a trap: it keeps people from considering alternatives. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 415 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov
ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) (05/02/91)
In article <12686@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:
:In article <1991Apr30.205205.6328@njitgw.njit.edu> ken@hertz.njit.edu
:>Making the application "pretty" as opposed to functional.
:It all boils down to the fact that using an existing object as a
:reference model makes it easier to `think about' the new technology,
:but it also acts as a trap: it keeps people from considering
:alternatives.
Granted, I just wanted to reinforce my basic idea with another example
of just because you use a model does not mean you should copy the limitations
of the model.
FLAME MODE ON
Word processors, in theory they were modeled after typewriters right?
Gee, as I type, should I see a black metal ball come up from the bottom
of the screen and stike each letter? If I backspace and change a
character, should the erasure only erase most of the character leaving
old bits behind? And should the new character only show up part way so
that I have to go back and restrike the character several times? Or
should I mouse in a strip of eraseing tape over the character I want to
change, then type the wrong character, then mouse the erasing tape away,
and then type the correct character? Or should I mouse over to a container
of whiteout, unscrew the top, mouse the top over to the character to
white out, drag the top over the character I want to white out. And
of course if I want to white out another character I have to mouse back
over and reinsert the top back into the jar, or the white out top should
white out less and less bits (to simulate the top running out of white
out). And of course if I hesitate before using the whiteout, it should
drop a drop of electronic whiteout somewhere on the page.
I'll leave insertion, deletion, right justification, spell checking,
indexing, symbolic references, having the page slowly tilt sideways,
etc, as an exercise for the reader.
FLAME MODE OFF
You know, if this wasn't comp.editors, a program that really did the
above would almost be funny in the 'check this program out' arena.
Kenneth Ng
"No problem, this is how you make it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNGpeter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.124351.20927@njitgw.njit.edu>, ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) writes: > Word processors, in theory they were modeled after typewriters right? > Gee, as I type, should I see a black metal ball come up from the bottom > of the screen and stike each letter? Oh, you've used Bank Street Writer too? Much hulabalood as a user friendly editor for novices, I put it up against a bare bones program (cut and paste) and it blew it away. > You know, if this wasn't comp.editors, a program that really did the > above would almost be funny in the 'check this program out' arena. Well, check it out. Bank Street Writer. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
martelli@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) (05/08/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
...
:Oh, you've used Bank Street Writer too? Much hulabalood as a user friendly
:editor for novices, I put it up against a bare bones program (cut and paste)
:and it blew it away.
^^ ^^
If this is a test for the pronoun-disambiguator subsystem of natural language
understanding systems, mine has just failed the test...:-)
--
Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 53, Bologna, Italia
Email: (work:) martelli@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org
Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434;
Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only), Fidonet: 332/407.314 (home only).peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
In article <161522@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: > Mouse support? Look at how most s/w for the Apple Macintosh works. > Word Perfect has mouse support, but it's an afterthot, so you can't > easily select a word or sentence. I like double-clicking a word. > I don't remember if this is availble on Mac's, but by extension you > should be able to SHIFT-double-click a sentence, or ALT-double-click a > paragraph. This speeds the work nicely. Actually, I like one editor I used that did this: every time you clicked on selected text it'd expand the selected range: click a letter, double click a word, tripple click a sentence, quad click a paragraph. Because the selected area expanded with each click you got the sort of feedback you needed, and you didn't have to remember that the sequence was click-shift- alt-command-hyper to get bigger chunks. Another thing I like, while on the subject, is incrementel search and tag search. Incremental search performs the search in realtime as you enter the search string, each character giving it more context. Tag search searches for another occurrence of the selected text. Handy for programming: just double-click an identifier and hit search-back to find its declaration. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"