Re: Mailing lists reflect on Developers (again)

From: Judyth Mermelstein (espresso@E-SCAPE.NET)
Date: Wed Aug 02 2000 - 16:54:42 AEST


Personally, I see no reason why a mailing list about a particular
program should be operated by the manufacturer. In fact, there are
excellent reasons why such a list should be operated by a person
whose interest is neither financial nor occupational, and should
allow for the free exchange of opinions and ideas.

1- The existence of a "free-for-all" list does not prevent the
   software manufacturer from having its own mailing list(s)
   or newsletter(s) which can present things from the company's
   point of view. (See those friendly Nisus newsletters calling
   our attention to the month's specials, etc.)

2- No program is perfect so there needs to be a place where its
   users can report bugs and work-arounds, complain about the
   lack of certain features and suggest utility programs to
   fill the gaps, express frustration as well as satisfaction,
   etc. without some corporate moderator stepping in to keep
   negative messages from appearing on the list.

3- Something special happens on unmoderated mailing lists which
   is quite different from what happens on the strictly-moderated,
   always-on-topic kind. The latter are good for keeping one's
   e-mail volume under control and picking up useful snippets of
   information. The former, however, take on a life of their own
   and become real communities (as opposed to the phony ones
   some Web portals try to create) where people know that if
   they have a problem, whether with that specific program or
   with something only peripherally related, half-a-dozen people
   are ready and willing to spend time trying to help. (The
   Nisus gang are very helpful but I wouldn't expect them to
   know everything about the Mac world and I know that at least
   one fellow-subscriber will have the answer to any given
   question.)

Actually, it would be sensible of me to give up this list since I
can't use NE and can't get past NW 4.1.6 due to the limitations of
my equipment; one could argue that I should be unsubscribing and
spending the time I spend reading and writing here on paying work
or getting enough sleep. In practice, though, I learn a lot about
all sorts of things (like later versions of the OS and software
that runs on them, clever ways of getting around problems with
macros I could never write myself, etc.) and it seems some of my
knowledge can be useful to other subscribers. And of course I
also enjoy the cameraderie... so here I am. If some of the issues
discussed don't interest me particularly and people occasionally
go beyond the bounds of politeness, well, that's life; I just
tune that stuff out -- and I'm sure there are those who simply
skip past my wordy postings which don't interest them.

Now, to return to Ben's points:

Yes, from the sound of it, Ben, you might well find that a true
layout program does a much better job of handling your graphics
and captions -- that's exactly the sort of thing such programs
are really designed to do.

Using either BBEdit or NW to prepare the non-graphic aspect
(that is, most of the content) is a breeze given the powerful
functions and macros -- better than the usual wordprocessors and
much less likely to distract you from noticing errors because they
are formatted so nicely, which is a real problem for people editing
(or self-editing) whether on-screen or on paper. [If I had a nickel
for every manual I've seen where nobody noticed that the words in
those nifty sidebars and captions were full of mistakes, I would
surely own an iBook by now!]

On the other hand, we can always hope that NW 6 (or 6.01) will
resolve your text-wrapping problems and handle tables adequately
for your purpose -- in which case I would STILL recommend you
nail down your content in plain format first, then go through
the text applying styles, and save the graphics-embedding and
text-flowing for the last step before printing a proof. A
fellow-editor has been giving an extremely popular seminar for
editors for some years; it's called "Eight-Step Editing" and
recommends (oddly enough) EIGHT passes through a manuscript
after the writer's final draft, on each of which you check for
specific types of problems -- in effect, codifying what most
of us editors learned by hard experience, that it's simply
impossible to stay focused on spelling, grammar, captions,
heading-level formats, page-breaks and everything else all
at once.

The psychologists tell us the human short-term memory can handle
7-10 discrete items in a list; a careful edit of a book requires
that one check about 100 items for accuracy and consistency
throughout the manuscript! No software can do it all for you
but NW is pretty darned good at most of it and non-contiguous
selection alone is worth its weight in gold.

Regards,

Judyth


######################################################
Judyth Mermelstein  "cogito ergo lego ergo  cogito..."
Montreal, QC        <espresso@e-scape.net>
######################################################



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 05 2000 - 23:00:11 AEST