[scribus] off list Re: ! ;-)

[John Beardmore]

joseph harris wrote:
> From: "John Beardmore"

>>> If one accepts web sites within the publishing concept then the design
>>
>> I'm not sure that most people do.
> 
> There has been a debate for some time on the issue. Copyright issues, 
> very pertinent to publishing, are certainly involved and the objectives 
> of publishing are most certainly achieved on the web. Design and layout 
> are about readability and attractiveness, not necessarily about the 
> steps or about the final way that is delivered.

More to the point I suspect is that html has been very poor at laying 
out pages. Originally it wasn't designed as a layout tool so much as a 
container for information to be rendered as the browser saw fit.

Now granted this is changing, but even now, between the differences 
between browsers, idiosyncratic implementations of basic features and 
bugs a mile wide in layout engines, it's just not there yet, and maybe 
never will be quite.


> It is worth noting that wikipedia includes this '...DTP skill levels 
> range from what may be learned in a few hours (e.g. learning how to put 
> clip art in a word processor) to what requires a college education and 
> years of experience (e.g. advertising agency positions)...' in 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_publishing .

None the less, I'm not sure that many people involved in DTP would 
consider clip putting clip art into WPs as a core skill.


>>> 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.
> 
> ;-) browsers!  Now there is a study in itself. Distribution of browsers 
> type and versions in use is interesting too.

Yes.


>>> 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.
> 
> But does that taxonomy still exist? Didn't the distinction start 
> blurring at the close of the 90s?

Probably,


>>> Then I would like to see another description of dumbing down.
>>
>> 1) Features not implemented.
> 
> Can't see why that is part of it.

Seems obvious to me.


>>  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.
> 
> The fight is much more likely to be with Quark or whatever other big 
> player updates and prices appropriately. Sector share is a usual 
> measure, and that means commercial player.
 > Expansion has been for along
 > time, and the needs to adjust to new hardwares or systems. The >downturn
 > dictates lower sales anyway, so the measure will still be market >share.

I'm not sure that's true. Most businesses like market share, but they 
like money more.

Arguing that life is great because you've got a large share of the 
software that's being paid for is pants if hardly anybody is paying for it.


>>> I would venture that a free program is rarely understood in 
>>> commercial reckoning either.
>>
>> I've written commercial software for a living.
> 
> Well there are a host of questions before I could judge that. But 
> writing is different to large scale marketing.
> 
>>
>> If people gave away an alternative that was free, better, and open 
>> source, I think my commercial understanding would be very acute !
> 
> A good marketing man might welcome it as expanding the market. Current 
> advice on the best place to open a new shoe shop, for example, is where 
> there are other shoe shops.

Only if you have something competitive to offer.


>> 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.
> 
> I was suggesting that the fact of competition was not a great 
> determinant because there is always the need for solutions.

There is always a need for solutions, but only to new problems.

If Scribus solves the problem of

     good DTP

and

     free DPT

this will cease to be an area where commercial activity can go on 
solving the DTP problem, except perhaps in some very specialised niche.


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