As a person who learned to type on a typewriter and learned programming
on a mainframe computer [since the PC did not exist at that time], I
have not learned how to do "styles". Never really needed it, as far as
I was concerned. Yes, yes, I should learn it, but time to learn and
play with styles is not an option for me currently.
The key is, if people can do what they need, they way they currently do
it, then why try to force them to learn how to do it another way - i.e.
styles.
I have heard horror stories of "style gone wild" within a document. Too
many times I hear of, and try to edit, a document that has styles within
styles, or at least it seems to be, and too many formatting conflicting
things that make a document very hard to edit if you do not know "what
the heck the author was thinking of" style options built into the document.
K.I.S.S - keep it simple stupid - was what we were taught in the pre-PC
days of programming. Sometimes it is a real pain when a person creates
such a complexly formatted document - that does not need to be so
complex - that you must wonder what was the author thinking of while
he/she formatted their document.
So, I have not learned styles. I keep my formatting simple [most of the
times] and it is easy to go back months later and edit and expand me
documents. I do not have to remember what type of formatting I had
buried in a "style" or some other "hidden" formatting aide.
I know that others would "gasp in horror" on me use of LO in such an
"old" and simplistic way. "This is the 21st century" and other ideas
that try to make people feel what they are doing is too old fashion to
be used in a modern society.
But, LO was made to be a office suite. Writer was made to be a word
processor. Sure you can go "all out" and use it as a desktop publisher
and other document formatter that does strange an wonderfully
eye-catching things to the text, but do we all need to learn how to do
those things? Do we all need to use them to create and format our
documents? No, I should hope not.
I was taught K.I.S.S as a programmer, and I have not removed that idea
in my documents. Sure, I am ramble on at times, but my documents are
simply formatted and easy to edit. "Easy to edit and modify" was key
back in my "learning days". so I would have to unlearn that if I was to
use styles like many people seem to think I am required to.
That it my opinion
Tim L.
former DEC mainframe programmer and supported of LO since it first came out.
On 03/25/2014 08:23 AM, Virgil Arrington wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
But what if someone *wanted* the formatting to be controlled by the
sub document(s)?
[snip]
Having the option one way or another (the current way as default
makes sense though) provides more control, no?
I suppose having options is generally a good thing, but I'd much
rather create and change formatting in one master document than have
to change and synchronize 20 or 30 subdocuments to make sure they all
work together. Is it better to encourage people to learn better
methods of working or to keep giving them the option of using older,
less proficient, methods?
Just philosophizing for a second, I think one of the drawbacks of
office suites in general is their attempt to be all things to all
people. If you were raised on the typewriter model and don't want to
learn a better way, you can apply direct formatting to each and every
paragraph of each and every document as you type, without regard to
styles. If you prefer styles and templates, you can take full
advantage of them. As a result, most tasks can be performed in at
least four or five ways -- i.e. keyboard shortcuts, menus (accessible
through either the keyboard or mouse), toolbars, direct formatting,
styles, etc.
But, by having so many options, people retain the option of never
learning, never growing, into more proficient document creators.
Having too many options keeps it easy to stagnate and continue to work
harder.
I teach a technology for paralegals class at our local university, and
I cringe when I get to the section on office suites. Following
someone's advice (Tom, I think), I recently gave my students a
six-page unformatted computer file along with a printed copy of the
same document, fully formatted. I asked them to use whatever methods
they normally use and reformat the computer file to make it look like
the printed product. Using direct formatting, they each spent about 45
minutes and ended up with a mess. I had one student declare that, in
order to achieve the desired result, she would simply delete the text
from the document and retype the whole thing, formatting as she typed.
She had no clue even how to directly reformat existing text. I then
demonstrated how I could reformat the entire document in 4 minutes
using styles. Even so, the resistance to learning styles remains high.
Perhaps, we could get folks past the Underwood model if office suites
stopped offering that as a legitimate option for creating typeset
documents. Instead, in order to placate those users who remain in the
(early) 20th century, office suites still have to provide a typewriter
style method of working. By retaining old methods to satisfy those who
refuse to grow, we have poor Brian still trying to get people to stop
thinking in terms of "line spacing" (good luck with that).
Of course, I realize that office suites can't be so elitist as to
insist on one way of working. There are too many different methods of
achieving results, and we have to accept people where they are. But,
it is so sad to see people remain stuck in outdated technological
methods simply because their computer programs continue to permit it.
Oh, well, enough of an early morning rant.
Virgil
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
- Re: [libreoffice-users] shutdown glitch (continued)
- Re: [libreoffice-users] shutdown glitch · Cley Faye
- Re: [libreoffice-users] shutdown glitch · rmg
- Re: [libreoffice-users] shutdown glitch · Cley Faye
- Re: [libreoffice-users] shutdown glitch · rmg
- Re: [libreoffice-users] shutdown glitch · Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Mark Bourne
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Virgil Arrington
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Brian Barker
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Kracked_P_P---webmaster
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Cley Faye
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Tom Davies
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · James E Lang
- [libreoffice-users] Keep DEFAULT UNFORMATTED TEXT for CTRL+V or Paste · manuel_songokuh
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Keep DEFAULT UNFORMATTED TEXT for CTRL+V or Paste · Tom Davies
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Keep DEFAULT UNFORMATTED TEXT for CTRL+V or Paste · Virgil Arrington
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Keep DEFAULT UNFORMATTED TEXT for CTRL+V or Paste · Steve Edmonds
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Virgil Arrington
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Tom Davies
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood · Steve Edmonds
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.