Re: [office] Question regarding user expectance.

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

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