TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: WORD, A Word Processor. Was: The Tools Tech Writers Use
Subject:Re: WORD, A Word Processor. Was: The Tools Tech Writers Use From:Elna Tymes <etymes -at- LTS -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 3 Aug 1998 10:16:02 -0700
Robert -
> Word is fifteen years behind the times in basic functionality.
At the risk of getting involved in what amounts to yet another skirmish
in this almost-religious war, let me point out that Word has its
benefits, and so does Frame. Word is installed on probably more
desktops worldwide than any other personal computer application, largely
because MS Office is relatively cheap (in comparison to getting the
equivalent functionality in separate packages), its applications are
relatively easy to learn, and its files tend to speak to most other
packages out there.
That said, Word has a lot of flaws, and you covered a number of them.
However, to dismiss Word as a desktop publishing tool is a rather
grandiose gesture, IMHO. In our company, we have our people learn how
to use both Frame and Word, although they start with Word because it's
easier to learn. We've done tons of manuals and other projects in Word,
some at a client's request, some because we decided after analysis that
the particular project would be done more efficiently that way. However,
we also do a lot of work in Frame, again depending on the particular
project.
Word has grown in both features and efficiency over the years. So has
Frame. And both products have had periods of relative quiet on the
development front while the companies owning them paid more attention
elsewhere. Microsoft is legendary for expensive and difficult customer
service, but I've had the same experience with Frame, both as an
individual company and as part of Adobe. To accuse Microsoft of lying
through its teeth about the product's capabilities and failure to fix
major bugs for years is to be guilty of some serious exaggeration.
Granted, when it's a critical bug in your situation, personal
frustration can lead to grandiose overstatement of the truth. That
doesn't make the accusation completely truthful, nor does it justify
sweeping out the Word in favor of its competition.
As Interleaf afficionados have come to observe, being a one-trick pony
has some serious downside risks. Most of us who intend to stay active
in the business tend to dilute the risk by knowing all the popular
tools.