[Scribus] N00b Stupid Table Question

[Christoph Schäfer]

Paraplegic Racehorse schrieb:

> Christoph Sch?fer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Paraplegic Racehorse schrieb:
>>
>>
>>>It takes a bit of work, but you can build satisfactory and sophisticated
>>>tables with the tools already available in Scribus. And don't let these
>>>other guys tell you otherwise.
>>
>>
>>Being one of the "other guys", I can tell that I didn't want to
>>diminish Scribus' capabilities with respect to tables. But as you
>>mentioned, "it takes a bit of work".
> 
> 
> 
> I fully understood what you were trying convey. Mostly I made the post
> because the dialog contained a lot "cannot" and "does not [yet]" without
> mention of how to do things in spite of limitations. That's the kind of
> talk that tends keep people away from products, sometimes only
> temporarily, but often more or less permanently.

You're right, but think about it the other way around: If expectations 
(say from pros) are too high, they will be disappointed and never look 
at Scribus again. Especially in the publishing world, people are often 
tied to brands (Apple, Adobe etc.). If someone praises another software, 
the reasons (for a switch) have to be very well-founded. Imagine an 
experienced ID or QXP user trying Scribus' table features and 
discovering the shortcomings. He will say: 'Somehow I always knew the 
branded products are far superior.' That's the reason for the 
reluctance. But you are certainly right in that my answer could have 
been more constructive. Thanks for the advice ;)

> 
> I am not a developer or a professional publisher and I use Scribus for a
> bewildering array of personal and company projects; partly because it's
> the best thing available within my budgetary constraints. As a user I
> want to see things improve, which means building a user-base large
> enough to keep the developers interested in adding functionality. That
> is difficult to achieve when it seems most of the responses surrounding
> "How do I ..." questions get answered with "That hasn't been
> implemented, yet" but there exists a way to do it, even if labor-intensive.
> 
> 
>>As I understood, John is using InDesign, and compared to ID, Scribus
>>is waaay behind with its table features.
> 
> 
> 
> Scribus is relatively closely matched with ID or Quark table features,
> as I understand the relation between the three (my knowledge level,
> here, is admittedly limited.) It is way behind in the automation of
> those features, which is entirely different. (Okay, so I like to pick nits.)
> 
> 
>>In many production environments, time consuming workarounds aren't
>>acceptable, and the bugs of Scribus tables can cause serious problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly, they are extremely important in periodical production or
> other environments with tight time constraints. However, I've read
> several posts from people who are working on personal, vanity, or
> in-house-use-only documents where these constraints are much less
> critical. For many, an additional few hours or days of work has a
> negligible impact.
> 
> 
>>Yes, one can already do a lot of things with tables, and I really love
>>to work with Scribus. It's a great software, but tables definitely
>>need some rework to be able to compete with InDesign.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but less in "features" because there is only so much that can be
> done with a table. Most of the work is necessarily going to be confined
> to automation and time-saver work flows.

No, there _are_ some serious shortcomings and bugs in Scribus tables. 
This is well known and I'm sure will be addressed in the development 
cycle for 1.4 (it's on the roadmap).

> 
>>No offence meant :)
> 
> 
> No offense taken. :) I guess I'm just getting tired of seeing
> less-than-useful answers given on software mailing lists. Rest assured
> that if I know how to do a thing in Scribus and I see less-than-useful
> responses - especially "can't" or "not yet" - I will post something to
> at least get the questioner pointed in the right direction. I probably
> will follow-up with an addition to the Wiki, as well.

That's what I tried to do: answering John's questions, and the answer 
mostly was: you can't (yet), but I could have pointed at the 
alternatives (see above). Kindly you did :)

> You "other guys" keep responding to the pros. I'll fill in the gaps and
> try to translate jargon for the amateurs.

I understand this as a challenge for all of us here: keeping in mind a 
broad spectrum of users and usages in mind. Thanks for the reminder!

> 
> ~ Charles


Cheers,

Christoph