On 23 March 2011 06:20, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2011 23:27:45 David L. Johnson wrote:
>> On 03/22/2011 10:58 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> > 3) Not WYSIWYG.  Normal users clearly expect WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG and
>> > WYSIWYM don't need to be mutually exclusive.
>> They are to an extent, since WYSIWYG really means that all the document
>> contains is what you see on the screen, without additional structure
>> that properly formats it for a number of different export situations.
> That's not true at all. OpenOffice, MSWord, Abiword and Kompozer are all
> WYSIWYG, and all of them can be used to write styles based content that gives
> structure to the document.

> I think the LyX community does itself a grave disservice emphasizing this
> WYSIWYG vs WYSIWYM thing. If I were going to enumerate the good things about
> LyX, it would be something like this:
> * It typesets better and more consistently than its non-TeX based competitors.
> * It deletes unintentional double spaces and double newlines.
> * It always calculates references, TOC and indices correctly, unlike others.
> * The black on tan is readable and soothing to the eyes for long workdays.
> * Its simple native format invites programmatic document creation and editing.
> * It's free software, which protects your documents from vendor lock-in.
> * It's an incredibly fast authoring environment.
What you see is more useful whilst editing?

What you see stops you fiddling with format when you should be writing?


Reply via email to