From: yseeley@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yonik Christopher Seeley) Subject: Re: A Proposed Approach to a Linux WYSIWYG Word Processor Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 06:20:59 GMT
In article <CBp344.2L1@oea.hobby.nl> dan@oea.hobby.nl writes:
>Michael S. Summers (summers@riemann.calspan.com) wrote:
>
>: I would like to address this article only to those who are
>: interested in producing a WYSIWYG word processor for Linux.
>: I will assume that such a project is at least an interesting
>: thing to contemplate.
>[sensible ideas deleted]
>
> Let may say first that your post has merit and is a positive
>contribution to the WP debate, unlike most of the drivel on other threads.
>That being said, isn't there a channel for discussing this and if so, isn't
>it a better forum to discuss those ideas?
I think there is a WORD channel for this.
One thing I have been worried about many of the posts is the
priorities that many people seem to base their design on. It seems
some people pick their favorite underlying format/language and then
try to figure out how to get the WP to use/manipulate that. I
think that the main priority should be on one thing, usability.
By usability I mean the design of the UI + the speed of the system
as a whole. I hate sluggish systems!
I want a WP that is near WYSIWYG, and is very usable. I don't
care if it uses OO design extensively, or if it's native format
is TeX, ps, *roff, or anything else. A totally separate conversion
program would suit me just fine.
The OO approach may help with embedding other things in the
document, however. But again, if it means being too much
slower, I don't care how elegant the code works.
Now here is where I cop out and say that I don't have any
time to devote to this ;-) Oh well, I will be graduating in
a few weeks so after that, who knows?
- Yonik Seeley
yseeley@cs.stanford.edu
>
>PS. If there is no channel, then, IMHO, the level of traffic related to
>this topic justifies the creation of one.
>
>--
>|< Dan Naas dan@oea.hobby.nl >|
>+---------------------------------+