🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <803@umd5.UUCP> zben@umd5.UUCP (Ben Cranston) responds to my
earlier posting:

>> It *IS* by definition possible to implement hyphenation solely by
>> dictionary.  If the dictionary is large enough, the assumption that a
>> word is non-hyphenable if it does not appear there is perfectly
>> acceptable...                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            [I should have said "does not contain any hyphenation points"]

> Oh really.  What then, pray tell, would your dictionary entry for the word
> "record" contain?  When used as a verb ("to record the data") it should be
> "re-cord", but when used as a noun ("give me the record") it should be
> "rec-ord" (assuming one hyphenates at syllables, anyway)...
>
> Oh, I guess you'd leave that word out...  :-)

To be fair, I missed examples of this type (even if I don't
necessarily agree with your hyphenation of "rec-ord").

However this does *not* contradict the dictionary argument, in fact
it enhances it.

Assuming a parser was used to determine the part of speech of a word,
no practical hyphenation algorithm could be devised to hyphenate
words accordingly.  The dictionary of course *could* easily be
constructed to contain different hyphenation points for different
uses of a word when necessary.

>> WYSIWYG systems (with the associated demise of much of the graphic
>> arts industry) are becoming increasingly practical and popular, from
>> Interleave to the good old "Mac"...

> WYSIWYG systems have their proponents and their uses.  They are VERY good
> for novice users, and given the way this field is growing I should think
> that "novice users" are going to be the MAJORITY of users until the entire
> society is computer literate.  (This much like "automobile literate" was
> the thing to be when I was a teenager - something 19 year old males can be
> macho about...)

By your definition then, the majority of automobile users are
novices, and always will be.  Their literacy does not extend further
than the use of five or six controls.  There is no desire in the
majority, nor *need*, to become "automobile literate" in your sense,
the user interface has been designed that way.  The same argument
applies to computer systems.

> However, there are times when the WYSIWYG paradigm breaks down badly.  As
> a somewhat strained analogy, a strict WYSIWYG system might have you use a
> mouse to pick out letters from a menu, rather than using a conventional
> keyboard.....

Not just a strained analogy, totally irrelevant.  Its like saying "a
keyboard *might* have just one key which you hit repeatedly until the
character of choice appears, thus any computer system which uses a
keyboard is ...".  

We are discussing WYSIWYG systems, and the ability of the general
user to do typesetting, not the pros and cons "of mice over
keyboards" (gosh there's a title for a paper (:-)).  WYSIWYG implies
an *approach*, not necessarily a specific user interface.

>Admittedly a strained example, but take a look around for such pathological
>cases the next time you study a WYSIWYG system...

It is difficult enough dealing with the real pathological cases
without trying to handle imaginary ones!

OK, so you're trying to make a point on "efficiency".  Good, that's
what I'm doing as well.  With complex tasks like typesetting, to
reduce this to a measure of keystroke counts is absurd.

The use of a traditional typesetting system requires much dedication
and training, and the ability to visualise the mapping from embedded
commands to the resulting typeset page.  (Even with an expert,
several trial runs on the hardcopy typesetter, or to a "soft" screen,
are often required before the desired effect is achieved).

Many people do not, and can never, have this ability, nor should they
be *required* to train themselves for tasks ancilliary to their
mainstream interest.  They didn't in the past, they turned to an
"expert" (and paid him big bucks).  They shouldn't have to now, they
turn to a computer.  Their literacy need only be how to drive the
thing in a natural way to them, not to be able to manipulate the
nuts and bolts.

*That* is efficiency!

A last point.  Compare this area of expertise with what has happened
in the computerisation of other disciplines (spreadsheets, data
managers, report generators, and the birth of the prime example,
expert systems).

Ray Dunn.  ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray