Skip to main content

Content vs. Style - modern document editing

On ars technica,  Jeremy Reimer writes great thoughts on how we use word processing.

His description of modern document editing:

Go into any office today and you'll find people using Word to write documents. Some people still print them out and file them in big metal cabinets to be lost forever, but again this is simply an old habit, like a phantom itch on a severed limb. Instead of printing them, most people will email them to their boss or another coworker, who is then expected to download the email attachment and edit the document, then return it to them in the same manner. At some point the document is considered "finished", at which point it gets dropped off on a network share somewhere and is then summarily forgotten...
We use an application that was optimized to format printed documents in a world where printing is irrelevant, and our ‘document versioning’ is managed by the timestamps on the e-mail messages that we used to ‘collaborate’ on writing the document. What a mess, yet it's our perverse idea of what technology should be in the 21st century.

I'm sold on the idea of
  • online collaborative editing of documents
  • minimal formatting
  • continuous versioning
In other words I like wiki's. Some of my wiki docs are a decade old. I can find them. I can revert them back a decade if I want. I can rely on them in a DR event. I know who changed them & when they changed. I know what they contained before they were changed. They have bold, italics and headline fonts. I'm happy.

I'm even happier after I delete the hundred-odd useless fonts that come with my computers. I figure one or two each of serif, sans-serif and monospace is more than adequate. If I see more than a handful in the drop down font menu, I'm annoyed enough to start deleting them. We can thank Apple for that mess. The really cool people who bought early Mac’s needed to show off their GUI text editors by printing docs with six different font’s on a page (on a really crappy dot-matrix printer). It took them a while to figure out that it’s the content, not the style.

I'm really amused when archaic processes are updated by superficially skinning them over with technology.

True story, happens all the time:
  1. Senior manager with long title dictates memo to clerical staff.
  2. Clerical staff types memo in word processing software.
  3. Clerical staff prints memo.
  4. Senior manager signs memo.
  5. Clerical staff scans signed memo and saves as a PDF.
  6. Clerical staff e-mails memo to staff with subject line 'Please read attached memo from senior manager with long title'.
Someone isn't getting this whole technology thing. If the message from the senior manager with long title was really important, I'd have thought that it'd be in the opening paragraph of an e-mail from the senior manager with long title directly to the interested parties. If it were, I'd have read it instead of deleting it. It's the content that matters, not the container.

Equally amusing is the vast resources that we spend making web sites look pretty. It seems to me that the focus on a web site should be something like
  1. world class content
  2. decent writing style and readability
  3. make it look pretty
Instead we do something like:
  1. make it look pretty
  2. game the search engines
  3. optimize for ad revenue
  4. generate content (optional)
If you want me to read your content, don't waste your time making your site look pretty. I'll likely use a formatting tool to strip all that prettiness out anyway. That is – of course – if you have any interesting content amid all that prettiness.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…