On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 08:45:32AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "Larry" == Larry S Marso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Larry> (i) "Document processor" is an utterly meaningless term.
>
> OK, let's give it a meaning. LyX is a document processor. If you
> process only words, you can't have a concept of section of
> references. If you process a document, you can. Isn't that what you
> explain later?
No, Larry is right: most folx reading the PR won't have a clue what
the hell we mean by "document processor." OHOT, Larry is wrong: LyX
isn't a word processor --- it's much, much more. I have a compromise
suggestion that I'll bring up in another message.
> Larry> (vi) Get into the message, relatively early, that LyX has added
> Larry> a number of things in the last twelve-eighteen months that were
> Larry> lacking before. I bump into lots of people who tried LyX back
> Larry> before it had any of the features I describe in the suggestions
> Larry> below, and don't realize it's evolved:
>
> >> The LyX interface offers the familiar look and feel of a WYSIWYG
> >> graphical user interface word processor. In addition to several
> >> pre-set standard document formats, this release 1.0.0 of LyX offers
> >> the user extensive control over fonts, margins, headers/footers,
> >> spacing, "bullet/dash" symbols used for multi-level outlines, the
> >> structure and appearance of complex tables, even the use of color
> >> characters.
>
> Except for table improvments, everything that you mention here was
> already present in 0.12.0. This does not make sense.
I like Larry 's paragraph. He's right, you know. People CONSTANTLY
dismiss LyX because it was too primitive when they last tried
it.... in v0.8.
> Larry> (ix) Don't be discouraging.
>
> >> Using LyX requires no familiarity with LaTeX -- unless you want to
> >> do advanced things.
>
> Larry> I've certainly never seen M$ say "Excel requires no familiarity
> Larry> with Visual Basic, unless you want to do advanced things" <- a
> Larry> true statement, but lousy marketing.
>
> That's right, but don't forget that we also want to convey the message
> to LaTeX users that they *can* use all these confusing construct. Send
> the kind of PR you propose to comp.text.tex and everybody will just
> laugh.
This is indeed something SORELY lacking in both Larry's suggestions
and Martin's PR. I'll see if I can come up with something...
--
John Weiss
