> > > However, many of the journalists I've > > shadowed still > > prefer to write in a WYSIWYG style that approximates the > > final output. > > Or do they simply prefer to work in a WYSIWYG style that offers some > meaningful visual feedback to the author as they write? >
Depends on the writer. Some of us still fondly remember Atex. Sure, it was prone to crashing and revealing your e-mail to others in the newsroom, and sure its keyboard had six gazillion indeciperhable keys, but it really focused your mind - since all you could do with it was write (plus, the keyboard was handy for killing bugs or for smashing your desk in frustration; I still have two of the beasts in my office). > Of course, you can't approximate the final output if you > don't know WHAT the > final output device/platform/environment will be all of the > time (which is > often true). > Yep: Most reporters don't want to know from fonts! > > But on the web page the end user can change the size > themselves. The screen > reader doesn't care about column widths. Different display > devices will also > warrant different attributes. > Again, a lot of reporters still think of print as their main medium and the main question there is whether the story gets on the front page or not, not how wide the columns are (especially since, in print, they're fixed). Adam Gaffin Executive Editor, Network World Fusion [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (508) 490-6433 / http://www.nwfusion.com "I programmed my robotic dog to bite the guy who delivers the electronic mail." -- Kibo -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
