The Persistence of Word (Re: The Tools Tech Writers Use)

[JIMCHEVAL -at- AOL -dot- COM]

In a message dated 98-08-01 12:04:28 EDT, hsmith -at- WT -dot- NET writes:

<<  However, that popular word process, Word, is certainly no better, and
 particularly Word97, a giant leap backward.>>

 At 07:22 PM 7/30/98 -0400, Andriene elizabeth Ferguson-addei wrote:
 >I Why, for instance, does >MS Word seem to be a standard tool despite its
limitations ? Is it because >of its popularity (or that of Bill Gates) or its
ease of use ?
  >>
Can you say 'installed base'?

Pure numbers and presence are certainly decisive here.  The numerous defects
in Word 97 are like the (intentionally) clumsy design of a standard typewriter
or the fact that it would be very hard to actually outlaw cigarette use
(despite the demonstrated deaths and physcial addictions associated with it)
simply because so many people use this legal, though harmful, drug. The
'better' option often loses to established habits.

I remember when Donald Trump had serious financial troubles it was pointed out
that certain banks HAD to help him - they were too deeply involved in his
affairs to simply let him sink.  Microsoft, in many domains, has certainly put
its users in the same situation (if they went under in six months - never mind
today - just how bad would that make YOUR life?)

The other decisive factor is that Word is a WORD PROCESSOR (and the one that
happens to have won the battle for casual users.)  Frame is a specialized tool
meant for professional use.  Its price and its functionality both pretty much
guarantee that only specialists will use it.  And the fact is, lots of TW's
work in environments where no one wants technical writing to become that
specialized - they want it to be an extension of the general working
environment in the company.

I'm especially aware of this because I'm helping my client interview
candidates for a permanent position (in L.A.)  I'm astounded how many
candidates come in knowing Framemaker, but with only the most rudimentary
understanding of Word.  And are fairly dismissive of its complexities ("Give
me five minutes on a PC and I can find the answer" - Yeah? Just try that in
the wonderful world of automatic numbering, vintage 97.)

I understand that for a lot of them it's as if I asked them to build a fire
with two sticks and a flint after they'd been using a cigarette lighter - but
in fact it's exactly that level of 'primitive' expertise which is required
here.  The fact that you can use the more sophisticated tool in no way
garantees that you'll be handy with a more primitive (and buggy!) one.

In fact, we have 'casual' users in the company who understand Word better than
the professional TW's my client has been bringing in. Simply because they use
it.

No, it's not the best tool.  But it's what a lot of shops use.  And a pro
should know it, and reasonably well.  Even if they pray they never have to use
it.

Jim Chevallier
North Hollywood
== TW page - http://members.aol.com/jimcheval/twoone.htm
== Ego page - http://www.gis.net/~jimcheval

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=