Yeah. I think this discussion is a circle we have been journeying round for
a couple of decades.
We started with a word-processor that was good but expensive. Professional
users were happy, because they could afford Quark Express, and someone who
knew how to drive it.
The rest of us could only afford one piece of software, and we wanted it to
do "more". But each of us had an individual idea of what "more" meant.
Now we have a word-processor that tries to do "everything". But it annoys
the professionals by not doing perfectly the things it really shouldn't be
attempting to do. And it annoys the amateurs by the complexity involved in
making it attempt things the professionals use several pieces of software
and a team of graphics designers to attempt.
Microsoft's latest response is the new user interface. Stripped of the
marketing nonsense that surrounds it, it is designed to make it easy for
non-specialist users to discover how to do things that used to require years
of learning and some complex operations.
Professional users such as myself will find that they can quickly do some of
the simpler jobs where "near enough is good enough" without requiring more
software or people. Corporate users will find their documents looking less
like a ransom note without having to hand them off to the Documentation
Department, book them in three months ahead and wait three weeks for the
finished product. Users with no attention span at all will get themselves
into "less" trouble.
Please don't expect it to stop Elliott complaining...
Behind the scenes, I think we will find we're now a few more degrees around
the rim of that circle. Eventually we'll get back to where each of us
started. "I want a tool that works exactly the way I want it to and
produces documents that look exactly the way I want them to."
The new XML file format gets us one step closer to that. It enables us to
"tag" parts of the file with names. In fact, Word does that automatically
now. The next step is for the tags to represent "Names of components"
instead of "Formatting". That's starting to happen (pull one of the new
table formats to pieces and examine the underlying code and you will see
what I mean).
The end point is, I believe, where you get a tool that works exactly the way
you want it to; and when I get your document, I simply switch the Theme to
have it formatted exactly the way I want it.
We won;t get all the way around the circle in the next version of Word, but
we'll be a lot closer. The next version of Word enables us to work two
ways: we can either name the components of a document and allow the
recipient to format it as they will (even adding or discarding text
components, as they choose). Or we can specify the formatting exactly and
send them the document in XPS or PDF so they get i exactly the way we want
it to appear.
Ever since I was introduced to SGML, from which all this technology began, I
have thought it rather arrogant for the author of a document to insist that
I read it formatted the way THEY wanted it. I think we're getting a lot
closer to the point where I will have a choice. And so will you.
Elliott won't stop complaining, of course. But now he'll be complaining
about different things
Cheers
--
John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. GMT + 10 Hrs
+61 4 1209 1410, <mailto:
[email protected]> mailto:
[email protected]