Re: For TBaehr Re: XPL, DLG, Development of XY4, etc.

[smtp@xxxxxxxx]

I'd like to jump in and add a couple of thoughts to Robert
Holmgren's observations about the direction of personal
computing in general and XyWrite in particular. If I understand
you, the rise of the "interface" built and controlled by the
software developer is antithetical to indvidualized use of
computers. I can see that argument, but what I think it fails to
take into account is at the same time those interfaces have, I
suspect, lured millions of people into the initial use of
computers who would never have attempted to do so otherwise. I
personally know many people who have no interest in bending the
machine to their will, because they have no particular will where
 the computer is concerned. All they want to do is write their
checks, prepare simple documents, maybe use eMail and the like.
That is not to say that I disagree with you, just that the mass
proliferation of computers has had a profound effect on the
nature of the user.

As to XyWrite in particular, however, I couldn't disagree more
strongly with your assesment of where we stand. When you say
"[a]t XyQuest these more or less philosophical questions no
longer burn. Too bad. They used to: the whole ethic was
explicitly, triumphantly, anti-standard" I think you are off the
mark on several counts.

To begin with, what other products (Windows especially) continue
to offer to the user such a rich array of options to take the
product into his/her own hands and shape it to their liking?
What other companies continue to enhance this capability in
parallel to their interface development? This has always been a
major consideration for us when we design anything. Now, having
said that I need to explain a few things.

In essence we are caught in a dilemma. The homogenization of the
personal computer world you legitimately decry is nevertheless a
commercial and economic reality. If we stood in its path and
resolutely refused to capitulate I guarantee you we would be
trampled. So, we try to preserve the users' freedom at the same
time we present a product that may have a chance of acceptance
in an integrated, industry standard environment. I freely admit
that this course has a cost to users like yourself, and sometimes
we may end up with the WORST of all possible worlds by
maintaining that duality.  Increasingly our documentation does
not keep up with the new functions, and it is therefore more
difficult for you to take advantage of the capabilities which
are nevertheless there for any user to employ. And there are
times when given a choice we will implement complex functions
through the menu interface without building corresponding
functionality directly into the editor.

An idea I have harbored, however, and am certainly willing to do
it if there is interest, would be to provide technical
information to our users informally, like this list, and ask
various users to document particular functions for the power
user where we do not choose to do so. It is not our intention
to limit access to the innards of the product, simply a decisions
 about allocation of resources.

Finally, I also think you misinterpret the atmosphere at XyQuest
when you describe it as "triumphantly anti-standard". More
accurately, when XyWrite was intially developed there WERE no
standards. In effect each word processor sought to BE the
standard. Unfortunately XyWrite, while always a superior
product, was not accepted as the market leader. Frankly, I
believe the product might have continued to enjoy greater
popularity if it had taken a more aggressive parallel track
earlier than it did. And of course we all know what effect the
IBM partnership had. But when you are talking about a business,
which ultimately this is, I have a hard time viewing anything as
entirely triumphant if it results in a failure of the business
itself.

In sum, I guess what I am saying in a lot of words is that I
strongly believe that in a mercantile world, acceptance of an
industry standard as an integral part of the product is not at
all a retreat from providing the type of product you want.
Where we stray unnecessarily you are entirely justified in
telling us. Yes there will be compromises, but without those
compromises the product undoubtedly would not exist at all.

K.