Word Processors: Stupid and Inefficient

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0

Rank

URL Tag Cloud

Groups (0)

Related Lists

Bookmark History

Saved by 10 people (1 private), first by anonymouse user on 2006-10-21

Marcell on 2008-04-05 - Tags text , article , design , ui , software
Samdavyson on 2008-03-23 - Tags inefficient , latex , processors , stupid , word , wordprocessors
Seancsb on 2007-10-23 - Tags article , editing , education , information , email , latex , opensource , productivity , programming , reference , software , tech , tex , tools , typesetting , typography , usability , web , writing , text , word , wysiwyg
Palindrome on 2007-09-06 - Tags latex , software , writing , toblog
Stuartmurdoch on 2007-07-29 - Tags books , del.icio.us , documents , dtp , imported , microsoft , pagelayout , publishing , word

Public Comment

Public Sticky notes

The word processor is a stupid and grossly inefficient tool for preparing text for communication with others. That is the claim I shall defend below. It will probably strike you as bizarre at first sight. If I am against word processors, what do I propose: that we write in longhand, or use a mechanical typewriter? No. While there are things to be said in favor of these modes of text preparation I take it for granted that most readers of this essay will do most of their writing using a computer, as I do. My claim is that there are much better ways of preparing text, using a computer, than the word processor.

Highlighted by marcell

The word processor is a stupid and grossly inefficient tool for preparing text for communication with others. That is the claim I shall defend below. It will probably strike you as bizarre at first sight. If I am against word processors, what do I propose: that we write in longhand, or use a mechanical typewriter? No. While there are things to be said in favor of these modes of text preparation I take it for granted that most readers of this essay will do most of their writing using a computer, as I do. My claim is that there are much better ways of preparing text, using a computer, than the word processor.

Highlighted by palindrome

I am suggesting, therefore, that should be two distinct ``moments'' in the production of a printed text using a computer. First one types one's text and gets its logical structure right, indicating this structure in the text via simple annotations. This is accomplished using a text editor, a piece of software not to be confused with a word processor. (I will explain this distinction more fully below.) Then one ``hands over'' one's text to a typesetting program, which in a very short time returns beautifully typeset copy.