[scribus] off list Re: ! ;-)

[John Beardmore]

joseph harris wrote:
> Joseph Harris
> From: "John Beardmore"
>> joseph harris wrote:
>>> From: "John Beardmore"
>>>> joseph harris wrote:

>>>> Remember the adage that DTP != WP.
>>>
>>> And that there was a lot of 'can do DTP' in some WP selling. Whether 
>>> it should have been is another issue. The fact is that DTP is a 
>>> widely used term now.
>>
>> Is it ?  Perhaps. Maybe we should be talking about 'page layout' as 
>> opposed to WP.
> 
> That might get one into more complexity rather than less; it might also 
> be moving the goalposts. I don't think any of the programs mentioned are 
> limited to just that, and most WP includes page layout of a sort.

And screwdrivers can be used as chisels or small hammers.

The software that has been discussed as DPT in this thread is Pagemaker, 
InDe, Ventura, Serif and Scribus. I think most of us who have used them 
a long time have some feel what is DTP and what is WP.

As far as I know, it all works by allocating frames in which things can 
happen to particular areas of a page, then populating those areas with 
text, graphics etc.

By contrast, WP packages, whatever bolt ons they have are focussed on 
formatting words onto a page for you, generally between simple margins 
or occasionally in columns.


> And I 
> would see distinct differences between page layout and page design. 
> Master pages are part of the design process, within the design decisions 
> of size, shape and orientation of document.
> 
> If one accepts web sites within the publishing concept then the design 

I'm not sure that most people do.


> and layout issues become even more complex, with the linear vs 
> non-linear well to the fore - never mind the variations of html, css and 
> so on. Some programs enable the production of print and site from 
> essentially the same developed file.

Yes -  though heaven help you if you use a slightly different version of 
the browser.


> I find the better classification to be level of detail control combined 
> with how easy it is to use. Both tend to relate to the skills and 
> preferences of he user.

Depends what you seek to classify I suspect. I'm still on WP vs DTP.


>>> DT now includes portable computers for example, which are very 
>>> powerful machines often.
>>
>> Is that a hair worth splitting ?
> 
> It was less a hair than noting an expansion of the ever-increasing ease 
> for users which also affects P and WP. That there is ever less tying to 
> training or place.

I don't think this erodes the taxonomy I've suggested above.


>>> There is always development of programs so it is more now an issue of 
>>> 'what might have been there' and to what extent has simpler operation 
>>> reduced or contained flexibility. Assuming by dumbing down we mean 
>>> easier operation at a price of some choices.
>>
>> I'm not sure we should assume that.
> 
> Then I would like to see another description of dumbing down.

1) Features not implemented.

2) Prettier pictures with no more, or even less functionality.

Dumbed down software need not be easier to use -  indeed in extreme 
cases it may just be plain disfunctional.


>>> I was thinking in marketing terms; at current market shares Scribus 
>>> is an alternative, but not in any serious ways a competitor.
>>
>> If I stop spending money with Adobe, which I have, it is reducing 
>> their turnover and profit. At a wild guess their accountants will see 
>> OSS as competition.
> 
> It is the numbers. Repeat business for Adobe means a single buyer 
> returns in a couple of years maybe; new buyers are found and brought to 
> action by marketing. If you don't come back how will they notice?

They won't notice individuals. They will notice the behaviour of the 
market in aggregate, though financial indicators and / or market research.


  If
> sales figures slip Adobe ups its marketing budget.

Maybe it will, but that doesn't necessarily help them when the emperor 
has already lost his clothes.


> With more people trying their hands at either doing the simple business 
> of publishing their own work [;-)] or moving up to more professional 
> solutions or trying to cut publishing costs the fact of a small 
> competitor in a growing market doesn't impact easily.

Depends on the relative growth rates of the market and the alternative.


> I would venture 
> that a free program is rarely understood in commercial reckoning either.

I've written commercial software for a living.

If people gave away an alternative that was free, better, and open 
source, I think my commercial understanding would be very acute !


> That might well change and I think Open Source is getting some notice 
> now from the big commercial concerns (boyond the watching brief).

Yes -  some of them even swim in the pond. But not Adobe.


>>> The failures on bugs may indicate how competition can both drive to 
>>> new ideas, but also reduce the sizes of technical teams.
>>
>> On the other hand, having no competition gives no incentive to have 
>> development teams.
>>
>>
>> Cheers, J/.
> 
> I am not sure of your premise. Is there ever a 'no competition' 
> situation?

The word 'monopoly' has managed to sneak into the language somehow, but 
I wouldn't get too hung up on that.

My point was that at the time Adobe were doing a totally crap job of 
fixing bugs in InDe 1.0 and 1.5, and had pretty much given up fixing bug 
in Pagemaker 6.52, their development teams, what ever they were doing, 
were not short handed as a result of competition from OSS, and probably 
not from competition at all. ...Though we'll probably never know.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore, MSc EDM (Open), B.A. Chem (Oxon), CMIOSH, AIEMA, MEI
Managing Director, T4 Sustainability Limited. http://www.T4sLtd.co.uk/
Carbon Trust Consultant: Energy Audit, Carbon Footprint, Design Advice
Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme, (EEAS), Registered Assessor
Phone: 0845 4561332   Mobile: 07785 563116   Skype: t4sustainability