🚀 go-pugleaf

To Fredrik Folkeryd - 01:16pm May 13, 2002 ... I like what you wrote. I agree. 

 I would argue that the choice of tool has impact on efficiency even beyond any battling of "bugs" (incidentally, in order not to devalue the word I would prefer reserving "bug" for programming errors that cause the application to malfunction; to label functional deficiency or merely cumbersome solutions as "bugs" seems to be a linguistic short-cut that can only lead to misunderstanding). 

WADS - I think it was InfoWorld, where they made three descriptions of program structures - works fine, bugs and WADS. Or, "Works As Designed Stupid." Which includes the way I think it should work as compared to the way it correctly works. 

This is fine if you're writing a memo, based on a Microsoft template. If you're doing anything else, then the systemic use of overrides in Word will soon have you bend over backwards to fix things. This phenomenon becomes especially apparent when several authors are involved or when the document(s) need to be moved to other systems. 

This has not changed since the days of character-based applications. And it extends beyond Word or FrameMaker. Several authors is the key word here. Plus it's easy to change the template. The users usually don't recognize the term, normal.dot. The problem usually began with "the guy before" or MIS. 

In Word, on the other hand, there are more ways to do things, closer interaction with other programs and less transparency ("ordinary" users shouldn't have to bother with the intricate detail). Trouble is, even when you don't know you're making a decision, you are, and in Word you're doing it all the time. Thus, you may not realize that the formatting of numbered lists is dependent on the "Normal" template of the local Office installation. 

This is a good point. Should the settings in "Normal" template be prescribed by MIS, based on each user, or tied to the document? And remember what Tim Murray notes - some numbering styles are written to the registry, and therefore tied to that specific machine's hard drive. 

Therefore, in my opinion, the threshold to producing a high-end document in Word (if at all advisable) is much higher than in FM. In other words, to do it right in Word when it comes to long documents (so you don't have to fix things at a later stage), you have to have a seriously thorough understanding of how Word works. 

Is there one application which satisfies every individual's style of composition and the collective purpose of the combined content? Are we talking apples and apples? 

I used to play horn in a symphonic band. We all had sheet music, agreed to play in tune, and had to follow the conductor's beat. Is this different? Is this Word or FrameMaker?