Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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)?


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.


To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.