[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Question regarding user expectance.
When Corel developed round-tripping capability in conversions between Word and WordPerfect 9, advanced users were unanimous on the various WordPerfect discussion lists that they much preferred an easily editable document than a document that was identical in presentation. The problems were acute with the new WordPerfect conversion filters. Because of basic architectural differences between Word and WordPerfect, DOC files converted to WPD were full of what was from WordPerfect users' viewpoint a mass of cruft. Presentation is virtually identical, but the converted DOC files are for all practical purposes non-editable because of the cruft. A single edit and users were put into a formatting nightmare. Because of this issue, I could point you to a half dozen downloadable scripts for stripping the Word cruft from converted DOC files so users can edit documents before the trip back to DOC. Corel's failure to come up with easily editable converted documents marked a mass exodus of enterprise users, particularly in large law firms, who had agreed to stick with WordPerfect for one more version to see what Corel could do to improve conversion. I realize that we are here discussing ODF <> ODF rather than DOC <> WPD. But I would urge that at the very least users be offered a choice between identical presentation and the implementing apps' normal processing of text. For example, forcing identical line breaks despite font changes or differences in font rendering can result in compressed and reduced point-size type. Particularly the latter is a show stopper for law offices, as rules of court commonly specify point sizes for text. The critical point comes when a legal brief precisely equals the maximum number of pages allowed by court rules. (Very common for offices to assiduously edit documents to barely get them down to the page limits.) If a document would exceed the allowable page count but for a violation of the point size rule, then the brief is subject to being stricken from the record and the firm is subject to sanctions by the court. Not a small matter, as having a brief stricken from the record can result in a malpractice claim against a firm by the client. And courts in the U.S. tend to be fastidious about their page limit and type size rules. As a general matter, I'd say that when identical presentation is required, formats like PDF with embedded fonts are the right solution. I'll also point out that Microsoft has never been able to pull off identical presentation even with its own apps. A difference in printer driver, a change in Word version, a change in printer metrics settings, font availability, all combine to make the identical presentation "use case" far more an unfulfilled goal than a reality in office productivity software. I'd rather see implementing developers rejecting the Microsoft definition of interoperability in favor of something more practical. Best regards, Marbux
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]