Publisher vs. FrameMaker (vs. troff and TeX!)

[rodgers at maxwell.mmwb.ucsf.edu]

In v7 issue 70, Hilarie Orman (ho at la.tis.com, ...!trwrb!aero!trusted!ho)
writes:

>  The discussion about these excellent products for Sun workstations has
>  brought out some good points.  I tried both of them last year, liked them
>  both, and chose Publisher.  One of the reasons is that it is NOT purely
>  WYSIWYG. 
>
>  ...[many interesting remarks]
>
>  There are lots of grounds for comparing these products, but some things
>  that are clear are that tastes vary a lot, no one likes learning to use
>  something new, and no one likes spending money on software.

I find Hilarie's remarks the best thus far posted on this topic.  I would
add a few remarks ca. WYSIWYG vs. batch-mode processors like troff and
TeX:

  1) As Hilary points out, nothing short of specialized publishing hardware
     is TRULY "WYSIWYG," and this still involves considerable expense.

  2) Although the psychological appeal of seeing a representation of the
     final document are undeniable, there are costs associated with this:
     for example, many WYSIWIG systems expose the user to delays while
     reformatting on the fly.  In a batch-mode environment, the user goes off
     and does better things with his time while the actual formatting takes
     place.

  3) Many users (myself among them) find the act of using WYSIWYG procesors
     a distraction from the writing process.  Leslie lamport (author of LaTeX)
     has made a similar point in one of his essays.  I actually PREFER to
     sharply separate the editing of a file containing my thoughts from the
     act of formatting them.  When I am engaged in the former activity, I
     am concentrating on what I am saying and how I am saying it, on the
     intellectual organization of the presentation and grammer.  This must
     all be in good order before I start worrying about where page breaks
     occur, etc.

Hilarie's flexible attitude is important.  I work alongside people who produce
our monthly departmental newsletter, and it is clear that for that activity,
the Mac-based WYSIWYG system they are using is well suited.  It is equally
clear to us that for the grant proposals, technical manuals, and manuscripts
we produce, our present troff- and TeX-based tools are better suited than
any of the WYSIWYG systems we have used, which include both The Publisher and
FrameMaker.  Troff and TeX are also very portable and incredibly cheap.

R. P. C. Rodgers, M.D.                  Telephone:
Statistical Mechanics of Biomolecules   (415)476-8910 (work)
Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry  (415)664-0560 (home)
University of California, Box 1204      E-mail:
Laurel Heights Campus, Room 102         ARPA:   rodgers at cca.ucsf.edu
3333 California St.                             rodgers at maxwell.mmwb.ucsf.edu
San Francisco CA 94118                  BITNET: rodgers at ucsfcca
USA                                     UUCP:
                                     ...ucbvax.berkeley.edu!cca.ucsf.edu!rodgers