🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep4.144238.28324@ncsu.edu>, bloomfld@stat.ncsu.edu (Peter Bloomfield) writes:
 
> Can anyone offer any experiences with or opinions about 
> Scientific Word (from TCI)?  Specifically,
> 1.  For entry of mathematical material, how does SW compare 
> with WYSIWYG programs such as MS Word, or Exp, or T3?
> 2.  Does SW really encourage the author to concentrate on
> document structure and content, rather than appearance?
> 3.  More generally, does SW promote good document-preparation
> practices?

I've been exhibiting at TUG meetings exactly the same amount of
time as TCI and ended up next to them both times so I've had a
chance to see them in action (I've also recently gotten an
evaluation copy whose manual I've flipped through). 

Now to your questions:
1: Haven't used any of the listed packages and don't much care
for the point-and-grunt method of equation editing to begin with.
TCI is the maker of T^3 so I'd imagine that the user interface is
comparable or better, but I don't know for sure.

2: Yes. In fact, they seem to have done a good job of making it
difficult for the author to muck about with the appearance of the
document. The input screen is a nice what-you-see-is-what-you-mean 
interface.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by this one.

Overall it looks like a pretty good product. Still haven't
installed it yet to try it, so further commentary will have to
wait.

-dh

Don Hosek                  
dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu  
Quixote Digital Typography 
714-621-1291