This issue is been one I've been thinking about a lot lately—at least from the writer's perspective. The office I work in is a very heavy copy-driven office, w

This issue is been one I've been thinking about a lot lately—at least from the writer's perspective. The office I work in is a very heavy copy-driven office, with multiple publications and multiple clients. You can tell how old a Web-based client is based on the way it handles copy flow. The oldest one relies on Microsoft Word; my program relies on a workflow using Markdown and Editorially—one I've advocated for elsewhere. The reason the older program is sticking with Word is not because the writers and web editors prefer it; rather, the copy editor prefers Word because of its track-changes functionality. It "just works" for them. But ultimately, it's causing major issues for the web editors, because they have to put in a lot of extra work to add in links and formatting. It's a waste of everyone's time to deal with extra workflow with a product designed for a medium many people are no longer even writing for. Which is why I've made an effort to find alternatives to Word for our Web properties. We need to write flexibly in the internet age; Word complicates and adds extra steps to a medium where good ideas need to be organized, quickly. I don't want my writers to have to worry about extra steps or formatting—I want them to write good stories. That's why I use Markdown. It's why I sell my co-workers on writing in Mou and editing in Editorially. We do not have to stand for an outdated system. We can improve it, step by step. We no longer need to print or typeset our content. We need to start acting like there's nothing standing in our way besides good writing and editing.