The microblog: 2020.12.06 20:24:17

2020.12.06 20:24:17 (1335666390854856704) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Luca De Feo (@luca_defeo)" (1335646297764859904):

The metric for a tool is how efficient document preparation is. The behavior of real users, mostly non-experts, is part of this. Document revisions are part of this. If a tool's UI pushes users into suffering through painful revisions, it's the tool's fault, not the users' fault.


2020.12.06 18:14:22 (1335633694158061568) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Brian Smith (@BRIAN_____)" (1335629491377299459):

Not sure what you're claiming is wrong in the intro. The interns were handling a list renumbering in exactly the horrifying way that the intro reports.

2020.12.06 18:15:44 (1335634039118688258) from "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)":

Yes but that’s because they purposely disabled Word’s autonumbering (which you can do with some difficulty). In other words, the fault was their own, not a deficiency in the software they were using.

2020.12.06 18:27:51 (1335637087006072834) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)" (1335634039118688258):

Or maybe they had no idea how to auto-number within the format of that document (non-indented numbered paragraphs), or how to auto-number anything. I didn't ask. Anyway, I'm missing how these assessments of intern competence are supposed to be disputing something in my blog post.

2020.12.06 19:04:27 (1335646297764859904) from "Luca De Feo (@luca_defeo)":

I have many horror stories of inexperienced LaTeX users doing something equally silly. Although it makes for a funny intro, using clueless Word users as straw men won't make you sound very neutral, esp. to the ears of Word users. Doesn't mean anything in your post is wrong.