On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 12:55 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> I have never used word processing programs for much of anything
>>> serious, using vim and groff or docbook xml for most things.
>> I've done lots of documents, documentation, and even some published
>> articles in SysAdmin (before it sadly went under), and everyone wants word
>> processing docs; up through the end of the nineties, it was all WP, then
>> it shifted to *bleah* Word.
>> <snip>
> I'm not exactly a word processing expert, but I always thought the trick
> to make Word tolerable was to never apply raw formatting to individual
> pieces of text but instead make some styles of your own so you can
> subsequently modify the style definitions and have it take effect
> throughout the document.
Well, if you know what a "style" is you are closer to being a word
processing "expert" than many - because what you describe is the proper
way to use a Word Processor and has been since far back into the hey
day of products like WP.
It is always a bear to get users to use the Stylist (as OOo calls it,
every word processor has an equivalent). But once you get them around
that corner most of the problems disappear and they'll never choose to go
back to hacks like highlight-click-bold. It is not more complicated, as
they first always complain, its simpler and faster; and as the document
grows *way* more managable - or, I take that back - it *is* manageble.
[always amused at people who have powerfully strong opinions about a
category of applications rought one sentance after saying they almost
never use them].
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
