Hello Gary
My comments were thrown in the pot because nobody has yet mentioned
making the template simple to use. This would encourage everybody to
use it correctly. Simplifying the template would also make it easier
to move an LO guide document into an electronic publishing package
without having formatting errors appearing in the document.
A template should have the minimum number of paragraph and character
styles to provide a constant look and feel to LO guide documents.
Besides the examples I gave earlier, another example is the Emphasis,
Strong Emphasis and Menu character styles. No need for these because
it is easier to use the standard bold and italic character styles that
come with every word processor. You just have to write the writer
instruction set stating what has to be used for what purpose.
I knew that Framemaker was a hybrid package and started using it in
1987 to produce documents to government standards. It certainly has a
steep learning curve, but it does grow on you once you have mastered
the dark secrets.
When I have time in a couple of weeks, I shall put together a sample
document using my ideas so that everybody can see what I mean when
with my suggestion of simplifying the template.
Regards
Peter
On 11 May 2012, at 14:55, Gary Schnabl wrote:
On 5/11/2012 3:04 AM, Peter Schofield wrote:
Hello
I have been following this discussion and found it very
interesting. However, I would like to make one suggestion for the
paragraph styles - KISS - keep it simple st----.
One example - why is there three styles for numbers and lists?
There should be just one for each, that is OOoNum 123 and OOoList
1. There is no need for Start, Cont and End styles if you set
paragraph spacing correctly.
Prior to around 2008, OOo docs did not use any special list
paragraph styles and primarily used direct formatting (use of manual
overrides) for creating their lists--much like using the formatting
bar instead of using character styles, etc. The OOo texts suggested
the wise advice that manual overrides not be used in general;
however, OOoAuthors tended to not always utilize such suggestions in
their own writings. Using styles makes any reformatting of the texts
much more professional--in addition to saving mucho time and effort
afterward.
So, using the list paragraph styles was incorporated in OOo writings
around four years ago in an attempt for OOoAuthors to "eat their own
home cooking" by using styles instead of the manual overrides from
the earlier writings in this respect--for lists. Since then, various
template designers expanded on them--resulting in what exists today
in that regard--some good, some bad, some ugly.
Revisiting this issue while still using the list paragraph styles
would be my advice for lists. The heavy-lifting work would then
would be done by the template designers so that the authors could
simply use the predefined (the factory defaults or custom) list
paragraph styles in coordination with the list styles themselves--
use the LO (predefined or custom) list styles for the selection of
type of the ordered or unordered lists (indentation and bullet
symbol used, etc.) and have the other list formatting done by the
list paragraph styles.
Second example - why do the style names begin with OOo? It would be
better to simply name each style as Heading 1, Heading 2, and so
on. This would make it easier to import the template into other
software because other software normally uses Heading 1, Heading 2,
and so on for style names.
That usage dates back at least as far as OOo's pre-version 1.x days
and was never discarded since. Personally, I prefer using the
typical noncustom Heading n style names and creating custom styles
only when necessary--e.g., when a factory-default style name does
not exist. Another thing that might be considered is adapting the
various flavors of the "Emphasis" character styles from MS Word, so
that authors migrating over from Word could use them without
creating them themselves.
My experience comes from working in MS Word to initially create a
document and then using Framemaker for the publishing program,
which my opinion was one of the best in the market. So easy to
compile many chapters into one massive manual.
OOo/LO and MS Word are fancy word processors, whereas FrameMaker is
a hybrid word processor and DTP application. A DTP app typically
utilizes advanced typesetting algorithms, in addition to other DTP
functions that word processors often do not do with ease. Adobe's
InDesign is much like FrameMaker, especially since InDesign now has
most of FrameMaker's capabilities. InDesign is typically used for
creating advertising glossies and magazines/newspapers, while
FrameMaker is more geared to building books.
Myself, I tend to write book chapters with a word processor like OOo/
LO or Word, then import them into FrameMaker prior to publication.
Because learning how to use FrameMaker has a steep learning curve
for most, it is advisable to have authors use word processors for
their writing, copyediting, and rewrites, and afterward pre-
publication layout editors can use DTP applications to create the
final PDF to be sent off to a publisher or commercial printer.
Regards
Peter Schofield
psaut...@gmail.com
Gary
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/
documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot
be deleted
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
