[scribus] off list Re: ! ;-)

[joseph harris]

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

Well John this is going a mile away from the purpose of this 
list, and even though it was intended off-list it has been on 
list.  So for everyone's sake I'll make this my last on this 
thread.

...............
>>
>> 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.

Indeed. And the nail is hammered in or the piece gouged out, 
however inelegantly.

>
> 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.

So a production in the West end or on Broadway is a play, but an 
amateur production in the Church Hall isn't; nor the school 
production written by the drama teacher? You might say 
professional DTP has a cut off, though I would not care to define 
even that.

>> 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.

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 .

>
>
>> 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.

.......
>>
>> 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?

>>
>> Then I would like to see another description of dumbing down.
>
> 1) Features not implemented.

Can't see why that is part of it.

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

Yes with prettier pictures optional.

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

Sure, but no way confined to this.


>  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 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.

....
> 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/.

I was suggesting that the fact of competition was not a great 
determinant because there is always the need for solutions. As 
regards Adobe or anyone else there are bad times, poor 
leadership, simply a lack of ideas which can explain such 
matters. As OSS shows - and perhaps with Scribus as an excellent 
example - the spur is not competition, but inspiration.

Joseph Harris