🚀 go-pugleaf

to throwing comments around like    

Always with the intent of saying, "use each tool to its strength. FM structure permits many efficiencies that other software lacks and uses multiple-undo to cover. 

But, like I said, FM is not good at this type of design anyway.   

with the implication that those who want multiple undo don't understand "structured documentation tools   

Negative. Pay attention, please. The implication clearly is "Those who need multiple undo for FrameMaker don't understand structured documentation tools." 

When you say you agree that "a product with less stability would benefit more from multiple undo" and that "people used to unstable software and twiddling with fonts might perceive multiple undo as a must-have feature", who are you agreeing with   

Not you. Who do you think I should be agreeing with? 

I certainly don't claim that those who want and use multiple undo do so only because they use unstable products or are merely "twiddling with fonts". Again, you denigrate people who want multiple undo.    

Are you drawing a conclusion that people who want multiple-undo are font twiddlers and are you further drawing the conclusion that such a thing is bad? 

I'm amused by your increasingly strident posts against its use, Sean. Multiple undo is helpful in page layout design situations (which is not much of an issue in FM I agree) and in writing (which is an issue in FM). For those who edit their text in FM, multiple undo can be very helpful.   

So where do you get off asserting that I "fail to see the strength in the designers and structuring your documents globally, rather than one word at a time"? Or that I have a "vision" of how multiple undo should be implemented?    

Based on your posts and what you find humor in. Don't like it? Think about the positions you portray before you post them. 

For the record, in the documents I work on, there are always one-off formatting situations where I'm arranging text or graphics using a style that will be used nowhere else in the document. In these situations, multiple undo would be useful,   

Agreed. Absolutely. 

And, as for "if you have to go back multiple steps, you have to undo everything, good and bad, or nothing", I don't see the problem with that - that's the whole point of multiple undo. And I don't see how that can be called "chaotic". If backtracking your steps is "chaotic", then surely your steps forward must also be "chaotic"?    

If you are writing crap that you have to completely undo, yes. Try thinking beforehand. However, I did agree with you partly on this. Multiple-undo is as useful as revert to saved or delete for this situation. Yes, it is uncontrolled chaos, but so too is the thought process that creates the prose. 

How do you think it can possibly be useful as a marketing tool if you don't think it's needed?   

Simple--it is a way to satisfy those who check lists of feature comparisons and those who complain loudly about features that are trivial. I agree that Adobe should accommodate these voices. 

One post would have been plenty. More than that and you risk sounding "holier than thou"   

Actually: 

1) Up to nine levels of undo would, in total, be more useful than one. 

2) I agree, if you don't think about what you type, multiple undo is as useful as revert to saved or delete. 

3) Multiple undo is very useful for unstable software, which is not FrameMaker. 

4) Multiple undo is very useful for unstructured software, or unstructured use of software, which is not FrameMaker. 

5) I have responded more than once because some have tried to pass off utter drivel as logic and reason. 

6) I want multiple undo only to silence the critics. I am convinced these critics either just don't get it or will really not use the feature much. 

7) I would hate to see RAM and system requirements increase, and speed decrease, as a result of adding multiple undo to FrameMaker. I would prefer Adobe to work on filters and GUI issues rather than attend to multiple undo. 

8) Thanks for burying the horse. I understand, we cannot convince each other. How about a truce and I buy you two drinks at the next conference we attend together, Framers in the Fall? 

Cheers, no offense intended, just an honest difference of opinion. Let's take this offline. seanb_us@yahoo.com, please. 

Sean