On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
>
> Rich Shepard wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > WYSIWYG promise?
> >
> > Andre',
> >
> > I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
>
> Exactly! I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
> who want a glorified typewriter. I want a typesetter that knows more
> than I do about how to prepare documents that look good! And LaTeX or
> LyX are perfect for that!
Oh oh, here it goes again :-)
In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX
looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants,
margins all look similar to the eventual output.
For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1.
Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has
typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even
show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the
graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.
I've never understood the "WYSIWYM" and "we are not WYSIWYG" marketing of LyX.
Why can't just say things like the following:
* Our output looks much better
* Our output follows true typographic convention by default
* Our page numbers are always accurate
* Our two column stuff comes out right
* Our chapters begin on the correct page
* Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
* Our program is much more stable than most word processors
* Our native format is easy to parse text
* Our user interface is fast for the touch typist
I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are confusing to
prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
SteveT
Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
