An interesting article in light of the recent discussions here about WYSIWYG vs. Markdown vs. LaTex.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/10/why-microsoft-word-must-die.html

The comments are also an interesting read.

Here's the gist:

"The reason I want Word to die is that until it does, it is unavoidable. I do not write novels using Microsoft Word. I use a variety of other tools, from Scrivener (a program designed for managing the structure and editing of large compound documents, which works in a manner analogous to a programmer's integrated development environment if Word were a basic text editor) to classic text editors such as Vim. But somehow, the major publishers have been browbeaten into believing that Word is the sine qua non of document production systems. They have warped and corrupted their production workflow into using Microsoft Word .doc files as their raw substrate, even though this is a file format ill-suited for editorial or typesetting chores. And they expect me to integrate myself into a Word-centric workflow, even though it's an inappropriate, damaging, and laborious tool for the job. It is, quite simply, unavoidable. And worse, by its very prominence, we become blind to the possibility that our tools for document creation could be improved. It has held us back for nearly 25 years already; I hope we will find something better to take its place soon."

I read that post yesterday and I'm not sure I got it.

First off, the number of factual errors contained within really took away from the larger point for me (word processor apps were adding in features like spell check and grammar check long before Word took hold of the market and I seriously doubt Word alone killed outliners -- though, Outlook is frequently blamed for killing Ecco Pro.)

Second, the reason Word is so important to the publishing industry is Track Changes. I've yet to see anything else do a decent implementation. LibreOffice can do it, but their implementation is pretty painful to look at. CriticMarkup is an ugly, bolted-on solution that can only appeal to Mac power users collaborating on documents with other Mac power users.

So, it's hardly the fault of those in the publishing industry that Word is so prevalent.

And that's really the only reason Word has such a strong hold. Formatting is either handled by Adobe InDesign for print or some web CMS for online content.

The only other solution that has come close to catching on has been Google Docs (or, well, now Google Drive) which I'm not sure is really that much better than Word.

Some web apps like Draft (driftin.com) and Editorially have started cropping up, but whether any of them will catch on is another matter entirely.

Not to disagree with shattered's overall point - but Nisus Writer Pro also does Track Changes if you're on a Mac.

However, love it or loathe it, MS Word has an installed base and is a professional standard such that as a professional writer you can't really avoid using it. Utilising alternatives such as Libre Office or NWP is inevitably a brave move; you always have to worry what your work will look like when opened in Word at the 'other end'.

The key learning points for me were that

- there are benefits to NOT doing your actual writing in Word or using your Word file as your main archival file;

- Word is fine for those for whom it works. If it doesn't work for you, decompose it into the separate tasks that matter to you (outlining, writing, referencing, collaboration, typesetting etc.), use other specialist software for those, but with an output/conversion option to Word (or RTF), if necessary. This may or may not be worth your time, depending on your needs.

As for myself, I'll continue writing in Markdown for now (in Gingko + WriteMonkey), in order not to get bogged down in formatting and typesetting decisions. I'm also learning LaTeX slowly, to get more control over typesetting. Lyx sounds promising for taming LaTeX.

I'm no fan of Word, avoiding it whenever I can. But I don't really see the problem. Write your work in whatever tool(s) you find best for you, then paste it or convert it to Word when it is time to submit it. And, though I hate to admit it, it is handy having a format that has such universal acceptance and application, because most people are not technically savvy enough to know the difference between RTF, Plain Text, Markdown, etc... But they all know Word. Seriously, have you tried getting people to send you written documents in something other than Word...

Steve Z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

But I don't really see
the problem. Write your work in whatever tool(s) you find best for you,
then paste it or convert it to Word when it is time to submit it.

I think the article is focusing on the specific relationship between professional writers and publishers (and it's the same for academic writers and journals) and the step concerning the submission of a manuscript.

The problem is that conversion is far from straightforward and creates additional (and frustrating) work to convert something in a superior format (e.g. LaTeX) into something inferior (Word), as far as formatting and typesetting is concerned, when the users (the publishers) are supposed to be sophisticated (and it still gets converted back into something else by the typesetters anyway).

This is exactly what I think: Let them have their Word to do their work, and otherwise consider it as the exchange format with them.

But then, I read some dozen of the comments in that blog, and it was very amusing reading, it was a complete catalog of all the "mistakes" MS ever made with Word (and on Excel, you could do similar lists), and yes, it would have been preferable that Word Perfect had won, or even XyWrite, but that's another story. I said "mistakes", in quotes, since with all those innumerable mistakes (of which their incredibly bad formatting styles system is probably the worst), they did something right: They succeeded in imposing this format on the whole world (first, second, third), and it was certainly not a mistake to sell Word/Office very cheap to corporations, and then, after they had introduced serious activation functionality, cheap for "home/family use", which got them their entrance into virtually every household. Now they've run bonkers, licence-wise, since now every ("home" and such) installation destroys one license, meaning ONE person needs to buy the same program over and over again, in order to use it on several computers, which is both a function of their willingness to not "having had" anymore (activation hardware-bound, and all the worse if you need to replace your hdd or such), and their greediness now they think they can do everything in the open, so they now show their "real face", when in fact, for Office 2002 and 2003 applications, it was NOT a problem yet to change your hdd or even to install them on some other computer, even, if over the years, this made some 5 installations for one licence, by hdd changings, by two laptops dying, and so on. This means, for some years, MS could be trusted to not steal from you if you didn't try to steal from them, and those years are gone now.

As Zeoli says, most people do not want to get into technical specifics, so they don't have some text expander by AHK or such, everywhere, but they are very happy with Word's proprietary text expander, so they are eager to write in Word, wherever they are. Let 'em do it, but it's amusing to read, here and there, what incredible problems they all face. In the early days, you could buy Word, or WordPerfect, for very similar a price, which was more than 800 Deutschmark in 1985 or so, and which was big money then, no comparison with 400 euro or 550 dollars what it would "be" now, rather 1500 euro or such, in value.

And then, from this starting point, Word got to almost every corporation "seat", when WP did not, so marketing-wise, MS must have done many things right in those early years; similar for their operating system and everything else. And now, with their integrational efforts, they try to get hold of every corporation data/info there is, world-wide, in real time.

Well, observe dogs: The little ones throw themselves on the beck, presenting their neck. That's what MS customers do and always have done. It's a minority that becomes early adopters of XyWrite and askSam... and then such programs die, from lack of funding, since "select" is a beautiful word, but doesn't pay the developers' rent. You see, the real problem behind all this (meaning, behind the fact that marketing plays such a predominant role) ist the fact that most people don't have any problems to present their neck, against somebody strong, so they don't feel this sentiment of injustice some of us feel when the give their money to the market leader, instead of the vendor offering finest technology, so evil (or call it smartness in marketing) pays: it doesn't encounter that rejection some of us would judge appropriate in such cases - by the way, in politics you see the same phenomenon, and in who gets promoted within your corporation, too: people cherish power, and then they buy.

Or how come people even accepted and paid for ribbons?