[scribus] Views of users

[joseph harris]

From: "John Beardmore"

John,

--Briefly.  I was not intending to challenge in any way, but 
merely to respond usefully to your despair of the technical 
knowledge of some users and wouldbe users and more so, perhaps, 
those not attracted to Scribus. Similarly I was attempting to 
suggest that greater take up of the program required a dumbing 
down.

>
> But with this line you are hardly 'Joe Bloggs': MSc EDM (Open), 
> B.A. Chem (Oxon), CMIOSH, AIEMA, MEI ;-). Added to which your 
> previous experience looks regular as a consultant in a complex 
> area.

Possibly, but a robust knowledge of environmental decision making
doesn't make you an expert in DTP.

--I espressed it badly; my intention was to point to the quantity 
of reports and papers and other documents you would have to 
prepare.  Involving many dozens of items a year I hazard a guess. 
Therefore the experience you have built up as well as the 
technical arreas that you are knowledgeable in.  Thsi was to 
contrast with many other DTP users


........
> The trend has been to combine programs into simpler work flows 
> and to reduce the need for additional programs. In that Scribus 
> in in the flow... Again the issue is not what is available, but 
> what does each individual perceive they need or can cope with.

I think that what matters is that the basic things are easy to 
do.
Scribus has pretty much delivered this already.

Additional stuff is a bonus as long as the basic stuff remains 
easy.

--Easy? Not for everybody. If you want to draw a wider user base 
then it becomes necessary to study their needs. This is not 
against Scribus, nor people not attracted to the program, nor to 
you. Just a factor of popularity.

.........
I think all three of them are well suited to anybody who finds 
that WP
doesn't give them the control over layout that they want.

I don't think they are especially sophisticated, though granted 
I've
never used Quark.

--Again this may be true technically, but the range of choices 
and how people make them can be an eye opener.

> On the other hand Word is like a WP with few-click DTP 
> facilities [and plenty problems down the line ;-)].

Indeed. It was Word that first drove me to Pagemaker !

--I won't go near Word and continue to use WordPro97, which has 
sophistication even for today, while I seek an up to date WP for 
my purposes to replace it. I do not find OO that easy or 
controllable though I fully recognise its depth. As my main 
writing is now done in Liquid Story there is no hurry.

So how is Serif simpler to use that Pagemaker, InDe, Quark and
Scribus ?

I've never used Serif, though some of my friends speak highly of 
it.

I can't imagine how the user interfaces of Pagemaker, InDe and
Scribus might be much simplified ?  In each case you make a doc, 
stuff
in some frames, populate them and Robert is your relative.

--;-) Er.. sort of. A comparison would need space time and words 
not really relevant to this list, even were I qualified to make 
it. But I can tell you that PagePlus does a great deal of what 
Quark does with a lesser input of time and effort from the user. 
>From list discussions elsewhere I am aware of considerable 
differences againt the other porgrams too.

--But others - two in the past day or two - have stated they have 
moved from PagePlus to Scribus for greater control over the 
output. Which is my point. Interface and ease of use are the keys 
for the majority, even including many bookmakers. When it comes 
to increased control Scribus is in the sights; then the learning 
curve is an acceptable cost for that control.

--But the numbers will remain relatively small while that is the 
case.

So how specifically does it make either simple basic jobs, or 
indeed
complex ones easier or quicker, or shorten the learning curve ?

--The user interface is 'user-friendly' where 'user' means 
non-technical and wanting the layout to be done by something 
close to magic! One example is the ability to prepare the first 
page from the master [itself possibly as simple as positioning 
guides], draw a text frame, enter the text file and then be asked 
automatically if you want this continued into same size frames on 
the necessary number of pages. Click 'yes' and voila, It is all 
laid out accoding to whatever instructions have been chosen [or 
custom defined]. Graphics frames can be similarly inserted and 
fitted into the flow with simply applied wrap options.  This can 
then be further formatted with heading and other styles either in 
the frames on the pages or in the story editor [I think that is 
its name too, I don't have it open at the moment], links either 
to the pages or to the web can be fixed with a relatively simple 
process. It can then be automtically saved as either pdf or html 
web folder - even site.

............
I'm all for simplicity, but I'd still like to know how Serif 
would make
my life easier, and for that matter, what might I loose access to 
?.

--The trade off is there, as with all things in life - know what 
one is doing or be limited for action. I am not suggesting the 
two programs are equivalent, but that for popularity the easier 
(but less adaptable) is necessary.

..........
I don't see Scribus users being forced to use the command line 
though.
Do you ?

--Well, reading posts for a few months now I see something that 
reminds me of it...

...........
> But it is not linked like Word to MS and the windows OS.

Nor need it be. Nor necessarily should it be.

--Again I expressed it badly. I meant that Word and other MS 
programs are semi-automatic choices because of the swamping 
effects of MS marketing [as they call their monopoly].

.........
I thought they were on most machines sold because of a 
manipulative
marketing machine and a gullible public.

--;-) A bit unkind, but certainly comparatively few Windows users 
are aware of things like Linux or any other OS and maybe even of 
Macs. And they don't need to be to get their day done.

But I guess that's their choice however frustrating we may find 
it.

--Most machines come loaded with M$ and few users would want the 
bother of changing OSs even if they knew it was possible.

More frustrating is the situation where schools and colleges 
actively
recruit microsoft accredited staff who promote corporate 
solutions
because they know no better,

--And most companies use M$ becasue they know no better, and 
schools are but training grounds for work these days.

Cheers, J/.

-I'm not intending to continue to comment on this. In general we 
don't really have a disagreement; but I do think you are 
over-harsh about the fact that most people have no technical bent 
whatsoever.

From: "Murray Strome"
> I think that is definitely the latter. OpenOffice, WordPerfect 
> and even the Lotus word processor have user friendly interfaces 
> that are at least as good as that of Word (their fans would 
> probably say, 'much better').
> But I guess that's their choice however frustrating we may find 
> it.

--Murray, practically no argument there.  Believe it or not Word 
is the required format in a great deal of the publishing world.

Best wishes to you both,

Joseph Harris