Re: XyWrite to Word

[Russ Urquhart russurquhart1@xxxxxxxx]

Hi Thomas,

On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Thomas J Hawley wrote:
** Reply to message from Russ Urquhart 
on Thu,
23 Mar 2006 22:20:47 -0600
If my experience is any example, it [Word] has more problems than
just being
slow.

There are two big ones, directly related to each other:
1. Object-oriented programming is not a good choice for a
standalone word
processor. To use Word intelligently, you need to understand OOP
concepts
like objects, properties, methods, events, inheritance and
containment.
These require some effort to master, and most people who just want
to get
their thoughts into words don't have the time or inclination to do
so. On
the other hand, OOP does provide the framework for integrating word
processing into other things that people need in the current work
environment, like email and collaborative tools.
I don't know if OOP is a bad choice for a wordprocessor so much as
the interface to that app. (I think this is the point you are making
in your second point. ) I do agree with you that some applications,
and i have seen this first hand, really show their OOP architecture
very closely to the surface. And, as I've stated on this list before,
while I am conversant with programming and OOP concepts, for myself,
i don't think i should have to know that going in when i want to use
Word. i don't know the underlying structure of Xywrite. But thats
just me.
2. To overcome the "OOP Complexity" problem, Microsoft attached a
poorly-designed menu interface to hide the complexity of the Word
object
model from the average user. These menus are really bad, and while
they
can be customized most users just accept what comes out of the
box. The
menus are also seductive, in that they encourage users to tweak and
play
with formatting instead of focusing on their writing; this is one
reason
why a move to Word in a production environment is often accompanied
by a
drop in overall productivity.
Or in my case, I didn't change anything. An applications interface,
IMO, kind of makes an unspoken agreement with the user that the
application provides feedback to the user that is an accurate
reflection of that applications current state. Regardless of what i
do to that menu, it still ought to give accurate feedback. If this is
NOT the case, IMO, then the application has failed and shouldn't
leave QA.
I am certainly no apologist for or promoter of Word, but it is what
the
world is using.
I'll use a version of my favorite saying again, I think we've gotten
the Word we deserve. Maybe if more of us voiced our displeasure
through email and using other products then maybe the next version
will be better. (Or maybe we'll find better tools for ourselves.)
You are absolutely correct that software should not allow you to do
things
that are not correct and will lead to trouble. There are available
menu
choices in Word that experienced users know they must never use (and
typically remove using customization so that they are no longer
visible).
Microsoft bears no little responsibility for this sorry state of
affairs,
but that was the price to pay for giving an average user access to a
complex object model.
I wonder about that because when i was having troubles, i went to the
web to see if the procedure i was using to put graphics with call
outs should work. Two different sites described the exact procedure i
was following. So i still don't know what that problem was.
The other sad thing about Word's dominance is that many people are
providing Word clones now. While free and able to read and write Word
documents, they act the same as Word. It seems almost that everyone
has given up trying to make a better wordprocessor and are content to
clone Word. Almost everyone. There are a few exceptions, however.
There are some wordprocessor developers that are trying to make a
better wordprocessor while reading and writing a Word document.
That's neat.

fwiw,

Russ