3 ms·

Yeah, and comparison with Word make absolutely no sense. In word you don't need to go through the entire document to change some style, you just use predefined

Yeah, and comparison with Word make absolutely no sense. In word you don't need to go through the entire document to change some style, you just use predefined formatting styles like "Heading 1", "Quote", etc. and if you change something in those predefined styles it will be automatically applied to the entire document. You can also work with others on same document at the same time.

SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
You can do the same thing with Typst. There may be fewer predefined "styles", but you can just define your own quite easily. And they're far more powerful than in Word.
stefandesu 3y ago
I wish that would work with non-tech people. In my experience, no matter how hard you try to teach them, they'll end up messing up the formatting in some way.
- mbork_pl 3y ago
  This. ALmost nobody knows/uses that feature. FTR, there are also many people who use LaTeX in a similar way...
  - paledot 3y ago
    Which is a commentary on the UX of the feature, not on the users.
    - mbork_pl 3y ago
      Fair enough - but how would you improve the UX?
      - paledot 3y ago
        Not a UX designer, but I would try worsening the UX of B/I/U/size operations to make users more inclined to reach for the formatting style picker instead. I would also heavily optimize the process to edit styles, so changing the font size of a heading changes all headings of that level unless you specify otherwise. (In fact, as I talk through this, I think the solution may just be to abandon the idea that attributes like bold and size are applied directly to text, and instead associate them exclusively with styles. Basically the migration from <b> to <strong> at the dawn of CSS, in WYSIWYG form.) Ultimately you'd end up with a word processor that's harder to use but easier to use right. And no sales team will greenlight that. But this entire discussion is predicated on a very prescriptivist viewpoint of the "right" way to use a word processor.
- eviks 3y ago
  How hard would you try to teach them to use Typst?

SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago

You can do the same thing with Typst. There may be fewer predefined "styles", but you can just define your own quite easily. And they're far more powerful than in Word.

stefandesu 3y ago

I wish that would work with non-tech people. In my experience, no matter how hard you try to teach them, they'll end up messing up the formatting in some way.

mbork_pl 3y ago
This. ALmost nobody knows/uses that feature. FTR, there are also many people who use LaTeX in a similar way...
- paledot 3y ago
  Which is a commentary on the UX of the feature, not on the users.
  - mbork_pl 3y ago
    Fair enough - but how would you improve the UX?
    - paledot 3y ago
      Not a UX designer, but I would try worsening the UX of B/I/U/size operations to make users more inclined to reach for the formatting style picker instead. I would also heavily optimize the process to edit styles, so changing the font size of a heading changes all headings of that level unless you specify otherwise. (In fact, as I talk through this, I think the solution may just be to abandon the idea that attributes like bold and size are applied directly to text, and instead associate them exclusively with styles. Basically the migration from <b> to <strong> at the dawn of CSS, in WYSIWYG form.) Ultimately you'd end up with a word processor that's harder to use but easier to use right. And no sales team will greenlight that. But this entire discussion is predicated on a very prescriptivist viewpoint of the "right" way to use a word processor.
eviks 3y ago
How hard would you try to teach them to use Typst?