Slashdot Mirror


Goodbye Cruel Word

theodp writes "The problem with Microsoft Word, writes the NYT's Virginia Heffernan, is that 'I always feel as if I'm taking an essay test.' Seeking to break free of the tyranny of Microsoft Word, Heffernan takes a look at Scrivener and the oh-so-retro WriteRoom, which she and others feel jibe better with the way writers think. 'The new writing programs encourage a writerly restart. You may even relearn the green-lighted alphabet, adjust your preference for long or short sentences, opt afresh for action over description. Renewal becomes heady: in WriteRoom's gloom is man's power to create something from nothing, to wrest form from formlessness. Let's just say it: It's biblical. And come on, ye writers, do you want to be a little Word drip writing 603 words in Palatino with regulation margins? Or do you want to be a Creator?'"

13 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. The best tools stay out of the way... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with Word and notably Microsoft, is that they have attempted to make both Windows and their apps, notably Office, all things to all people with an interface that has not really changed at all over the course of its lifetime.

    I used to think that the reality of the situation was that you really could not have a professional class word processing application that does all things that professional writers need used by the same audience that merely wants to write school reports or letters to friends. However, it is all in the interface and Pages from Apple has shown that many of the "professional" features in word processing have to do with page layout or formatting issues as well as integrating not just text and fonts, but also images. Fundamentally the issue with interfaces is not providing features piled on features, but figuring out how to craft a tool that people can use to get work done rather than having to learn how to use the tool. I want my word processing environment to simply let me craft written word and images into a form that allows me to communicate my intent to the audience without getting in the way or making me learn arcane and occult methods for getting my page numbers to appear just right or getting the text to wrap around an embedded image without constantly having to reformat an entire 80 (or more) page document. Writing my doctoral dissertation in Word back in 2003 was a repeated lesson in pain as every time I changed a single image, the formatting of the entire document would be altered with entire paragraphs seeming to disappear or get hidden outside of margins and I never want to return to that world.

    Granted, I still have to return to Word from time to time as Pages is not yet perfect, still needing better integration with Endnote, but it is getting pretty close. The perfect environment would be Pages that can read and edit Adobe Acrobat files along with markup, comments and notes along with full Endnote functionality that would also run on a tablet that takes advantage of gestures...

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:The best tools stay out of the way... by cicho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks, but since when is something usable because MS says so? When I work in an application, I can tell whether or not its UI is discoverable, and whatever MS says does not change my live experience one way or another.

      The Ribbon is awful for discoverability, because (a) the tooltips are tiny and hard to read (for some people, like myself), (b) sometimes the tooltips are posisioned over the button labels, so you see the key but no longer recognize the command it performs, and (c) because you have to press the darn Alt key! A menu is something you can open and while it stays open, you can navigate the menu and read the keyboard shortcuts at your own pace. As a readout, it is much clearer and more convenient.

      Then there's the fact that you cannot customize the ribbon at all. The measly, tiny toolbar MS so graciously allows you to add buttons to is a sorry excuse.

      Then the contextual shifting of the ribbon means I can no longer just click a button that I know is always there, almost without looking, since the mouse hand has its relative position memorized. Now I must check the current page first and switch to the one I need - a displacement of sorts. The shifting is visually distracting, too.

      MS has repeatedly lied about how the Ribbon supposedly takes less vertical space than the menu and toolbars (not true), and likewise their usability claims are - at the very least - highly subjective.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    2. Re:The best tools stay out of the way... by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of the anti-Vista and anti-2007 rhetoric frequently strikes me as just anti-MS drivel. Granted there are people like you who don't care for the 2007 interface but most of the criticism is rather empty and shallow and often from people who have done little more than spend 5 minutes trying out the products.

      Thanks for the credit -- I don't think any OS or toolset gets it right all of the time, and I try to call it on individual cases. There is MS stuff that I like (Visual Studio, for example) and MS stuff that I don't like (Office 2007, obviously).

      The specific things I don't like about the Office 2007 UI are:

      • I don't like moving my hands from the keys when typing, so I like to access functions using keystrokes. Almost all the key sequences for common operations were longer on Office 2007. Had they just been different I'd have bitten the bullet, as I did going from 2000 to 2003, but these were longer, which slowed me down. And yes, I know I could have used the 2003 keystrokes, and most of them would work (but would nag me about using obsolete key sequences), some would not do anything, and some would crash the application without giving me the chance to save my work (yes, I confess, it was the Beta -- did the interface change much in the release?)
      • The ribbon certainly used up more space on my screen. As I work on the road a lot and don't want a gorilla arm, I tend to work on a small laptop, and couldn't afford the space. Yes, I know I could make it auto-hide, so that when I think I'm about to click on a piece of text the ribbon suddenly drops down and I end up clicking on it instead. Ornery old cuss that I am, I didn't like that any better.
      • The ribbon gave equal screen real estate to functions I would only use every couple of years when creating new templates as it did to stuff I'd use every day, and wouldn't let me change that.
      • The ribbon didn't have enough structure. When looking for a button I didn't use very often, I would spend ages doing a visual search of a pile of often similar looking icons in quite a large visual field. It was like having all the tools in my workshop tipped in a few piles in the middle of the floor, instead of having them neatly put away on the shelves and in the drawers. Yes, sure, I would have got used to where to find the common icons quite quickly, but I used the keyboard for those, remember?
      • I'm a verbal person. I don't forget names, but I forget the faces that go with them. From the days I started in computing I found pseudocode far easier to follow than a flowchart. I see "File | Save" and I immediately see what it means. I see a picture of something and my mind takes time over it. Office 2003 catered for visual and verbal thinkers: I had the menus, visual thinkers had the toolbars. 2007 took that choice away from me, and tried to force me into a style of recognition that my mind doesn't do well.

      But they are all largely a matter of personal style. A heavy mouser won't mind the longer key sequences. Somebody desk based with a huge hi-res screen won't miss the real-estate. A right-brain dominant person will be glad to see the back of the menus. There are plenty of people for whom the interface will work just fine. What got me is that 2007 took away my choice. I had to work the way MS chose for me to work -- no, worse, I had to work in the way that a graphic designer in Redmond chose for me to work, and of course they have a visual rather than a verbal mind because that's what makes a good graphic designer. And I bet they have a huge screen. And I bet they prefer the mouse to the keyboard, because the mouse is better at graphics and layouts than the keyboard is. But I am not a graphic designer.

      I've been told that there are third-party tools that can fix a lot of the problems I had. But the fact that it needs third-party tools to make the interface acceptable suggests to me that MS got it wrong in the first place. Not wrong in the sense that the interface is wrong for everybody, but wrong in that it assumes everybody works and thinks the same. One size does not fit all.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:The best tools stay out of the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it is more discoverable than ever before

      Hint: if you have to tell people how discoverable it is, it isn't.
    4. Re:The best tools stay out of the way... by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WYSIWYG is at best overrated and at worst deleterious.

      "Writing" is actually two domains: that of the author, and that of the calligrapher / typesetter. These domains are, to a surprising extent, independent: a manuscript can be full of scratchings-out, ink blots &c. yet still manipulate the emotions of a reader able to overlook the presentation, and beautifully laid-out text can still be nonsense.

      Traditionally, manuscripts were created using pen and ink, or simple fixed-font, monospace typewriters; and someone at the publishing company dealt with setting books in type. WYSIWYG word processors have broken this natural abstraction. Ultimately, WYSIWYG software distracts you from being an author, by creating fancy (but ultimately irrelevant) calligraphic effects. (And in particularly bad cases, you get people who don't know any better trying to lay out a document using spaces; but let's not go there.)

      The author who uses a simple text editor with a monospaced font is freed from having to worry how the final output will look, and can get on with the business of writing words.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  2. Clever reference by Heffernan by mav[LAG] · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft Word. Light of my mind, fire of my frustration. My sin, my soul. Mi-cro-soft-word. The mouth contorts with anti-poetry. My. Crow. Soft. Word.

    This was a coffee-out-the-nose moment for me - it's a parody of the very first paragraph of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita.

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  3. Since 1.0 by mschuyler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've used Word since version 1.0 when it came on two 5-1/4" floppies and included a mouse in the box and ran on the original IBM 8088. Before that I used Word Factory, Wordstar and Zardax. I've used every version of Word since 1.0. It is now certainly bloated and busy. It's advanced features such as multiple indexing can drive you crazy with their ineptness, but at heart it is simply a blank screen for you to fill in. Turn off the Nazi grammar feature and it pretty well leaves you alone to do what you want. If you aren't creative, Word won't make you so. If you are creative, Word isn't going to regiment you into not being so. To claim otherwise is an excuse. Maybe you just aren't, like, creative at all. Blaming the software won't turn it around any more than the paper you use. If 8-1/2 x 11" paper is too authoritarian for you, try Charmin to better express your creativity. By all means use another word processor if it makes you feel better, but I don't think a few people looking for another cause are going to lead an exodus away from Word any time soon.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  4. A writing tool for writers by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's something to be said for a writing tool for writers.

    First, professional writers need only minimal formatting capability. Formatting is someone else's job. Any formatting done by the author will just interfere with page makeup later. Writers need to be able to insert chapter breaks, and that's about it.

    Second, the word processor should not interrupt the flow of writing. Auto-completion is usually not wanted. Spell checking is probably better done after the fact, not during writing.

    Third, not losing the text is important. The writer should not have to "save". A word processor which guaranteed it would never lose the text, backed up by continuous remote backup to multiple sites and an insurance policy, would probably have a following among pros.

    There are newsroom systems like this, on which reporters compose stories.

  5. The way it works isn't the problem by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read TFA, and these guys seem to be worried about the wrong thing. Word menus, etc, are easy enough to deal with. What makes it a god-forsaken piece of shit are all the bugs. Documents are always getting corrupted, figures don't do where you want and stay there, can't save sometimes for no apparent reason, the entire thing just bombs out, etc. We had a "Platinum Support Ticket" or some similar nonsense open on Word for a few years. The upshot, direct from a Microsoft senior support line, was that if we wanted documents to not get corrupted, was to print it out on paper, make sure it was right, then use a scanner and save it as a TIFF. Thanks, that's good advice.

            What is so pathetic is that I have ordinary technical documents from the late 50's and 60's that are laid out better, have better graphics, and are still perfectly readable today. While at the same time, a Word document I saved last week either can't be opened, or has all the symbols corrupted.

                  Brett

  6. Zen by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mod parent up, it really sums up everything worthwhile about the subject.

    "Curse these personal computers!" cried the novice in anger, "To make them do anything I must use three or even four editing programs. This is truly intolerable!"

    The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affairs?" he asked.

    The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new editing program," he said, "a program that will replace all these others."

    Suddenly the master struck the novice on the side of his head.

    "What did you do that for?" exclaimed the surprised novice.

    "I have no wish to learn another editing program," said the master.

    And suddenly the novice was enlightened.

    -- from "The Zen of Programming" by Geoffrey James, 1988.

  7. vi for writing by remitaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to agree that, for me, the best writing environment is a terminal with vim (often using Compiz' ADD Helper to dim the desktop and all other windows)

    Also, a lightweight markup language, like Markdown, lets you write normally - but be able to convert your document to XHTML, LaTeX, PDF, etc etc.

    The biggest downside to using vim is that, unlike Scrivener, it doesn't give you explicit places to put your notes / outline / etc. So, using vim, you're free to put your notes / etc wherever you want ... both an upside (freedom) and a downside (something you have to figure out and that might distract you).

    For drafting, I often using an SCM like git or subversion, but for little snippets and free-writes, etc? They might be written down on paper, they might be in a random note file ... who knows?

    It might be worth it to use screen or vim split screens to reproduce something like Scrivener provides, with designated places on the sides to have notes, etc etc. I think I might try that out ...

    But, come-on, really ... don't we use vim because it's what we use all day, anyway? As sysadmins / programmers / etc, it makes sense for us to use the editor that we always use (which is available on all OSes, as well).

    I use vim for my writing, because it's what I use all day anyway.
    I use git for keeping track of my files / drafts / revisions, because it's what I use all day anyway.
    I use markdown for my markup, because it's what I use all day anyway.

  8. Best tools .... by j_w_d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is, there are writers, and there are people who write, and then there are people who look at a page of text and either drop it or say "ooh, pretty!!!" Word went downhill steadily from about Word for Windows 2.0 on. Word was in competition (well so were Wordperfect and a number of other extinct word processors so-called) with desktop publishing programs. Writers don't NEED the features that Word, or WordPerfect, or Open Office provide. They typically are constrained by very specific formatting rules - things like "type face - Courier," "two spaces after a period," "page numbers at upper right," "single tab at beginning of paragraph," etc. Effectively all they need IS a glorified typewriter (no more carbon paper, no more white-out, and cut and paste no longer demands scissors and paste). Publishers have very, very explicit requirements and all the menus, pop-ups, drop-downs, and general eye-candy just get in the way of a writer. So less is really better - honestly, WordStar was a great tool. Now, if your documents are the product of a one-man band, self-published (because no publisher will touch your manuscripts in fear that the crazed air you exude is contagious), then yeah, you need a word processor like Word - and a really big stapler. Or, indeed, if your employer never actually reads your reports or memos, and your income and raises depend on his appreciation of the "professional, polished appearance of your memo [about excess use of coffee by other staff]," then yeah, again you might be able to use Word effectively. But, for a writer, a scientist, or a real analyst, content is king and all that's really necessary is that lower case "L"s can't be confused with the numeral "1" by the reader, and the publisher will accept the manuscript without comments like, "type it over, correctly, and we'll see."

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.