home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!odin!mahakala.corp.sgi.com!clarke
- From: clarke@mahakala.corp.sgi.com (David Clarke)
- Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
- Subject: Re: Troff vs FrameMaker Productivity
- Message-ID: <1992Jul23.155110.2648@odin.corp.sgi.com>
- Date: 23 Jul 92 15:51:10 GMT
- Article-I.D.: odin.1992Jul23.155110.2648
- References: <1992Jul23.045118.27744@news.eng.convex.com> <HAMM.92Jul22094612@toto.austoto.sps.mot.com> <1992Jul22.231152.4991@informix.com>
- Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
- Reply-To: clarke@mahakala.corp.sgi.com (David Clarke)
- Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
- Lines: 17
- Nntp-Posting-Host: mahakala.corp.sgi.com
-
- In article <1992Jul23.045118.27744@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
- writes:
-
- >Why does WYSIWYG have to add _any_ complexity? You can give a writer (one
- >who doesn't care to mess with formatting decisions) a FrameMaker template.
- >If the template is well-designed, all the writer has to do is fill in the
- >blanks. It's as simple as typing text.
-
- It might be interesting to rerun the troff vs frame test that Steve Hamm refers with
- a Frame template. Or, you could eliminate the troff macros and force the troff side to
- work with raw formatting instructions. Either way, this would be a more accurate test of
- relative productivity than having one side rely on auto-formatting and forcing the other
- to format line-by-line.
-
- -----------------
- David Clarke
- clarke@corp.sgi.com
-