I've been reading all of the great responses today waiting for an appropriate time to respond.
I'm glad I waited. Dwight, you're right on the money with your response - worded much more clearly than my own. This is precisely the point I was trying to make. It isn't the final presentation that concerns writers (though sometimes it might be)...it's the presentation as they write. And whether or not that presentation is carried over into the final rendering is a separate issue. I think my journalist example (earlier today) may have confused a few people. Journalists do hand off their stories to copy editors and page designers for final rendering. Ultimately the page designer decides what the final presentation will look like based on the publication's established style guidelines. However, many of the journalists I've shadowed still prefer to write in a WYSIWYG style that approximates the final output. They set column widths, they use many of the same fonts, they break headlines, and so forth. They don't bother with details such as kerning and leading...that's too granular and best left to someone with the proper tools and skills. They simply wish to "get an idea" of what the story will look like. Still other writers aren't necessarily trying to approximate any sort of final output. They're simply more comfortable working in an environment that, as you so clearly stated, "reflects the information/message that they're trying to convey." It's a huge issue if new tools interfere with the way they work. Providing a WYSIWYG editor on the front-end satisfies their creative needs, while transparently generating XML from their work satisfies the needs of the business. Joe > IMO, the pro XML/XSLT faction miss-characterizes the writer's need for WYSIWYG. I don't think that the writers are taking a hard line on controlling the final presentation. I do think that they're taking a hard line on having proper presentation as they write. They're trying to present information and <Strong>if they want to make a point</Strong>, then tagging it does not have the same visceral effect as "making their point in bold." I think that they need to see a presentation that reflects the information that they're trying to convey.< > As an analog, suppose you visit your software department and order them to switch to a new indentation and brace style and require that they > use a new editor that would enforce the new standards. After all, they > are really providing a set instructions to the compiler and they don't > need to be concerned with the presentation of those instructions and > how they interact with those instructions. > > IMO, we will not see wide spread generation of content in XML until we > have wide spread acceptance of a WYSIWYG editor that generates it. > Right now, I think that means that you're more or less limited to > taking controls of styles in Word and training people to use styles > religiously. > > Dwight > -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
