Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

 I am just a little confused at the moment: I had heard that
 Theorem-like environments would be supported by LyX in a reasonable
 way for 1.4.x but I still only have them as latex commands. Is that me
 or does it require x  2?

AFAIK they are only available in the AMS document classes.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Helge Hafting]

Stephen Harris wrote:

Helge Hafting wrote:

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
Word-like--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.




Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a layout editor or in-lyx format edit could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting



You certainly know more about this than I do, so I'll phrase
the next point as a question rather than as an objection.

The *layouts* package: user manual by Peter R. Wilson layman.pdf

The layouts package enables the display of various elements
of a document's layout including: the general page layout;
disposition of floats; layout of paragraphs, lists, footnotes,
table of contents, and sectional headings; font boxes.
Facilities are provided for a document designer to experiment
with the layout parameters.

SH: I think this user manual would be required reading for
creating a new .layout file? Do you think the information
contained is inappropriate for LyX and belongs in a LyX menu?

The layout package is something completely different.
It is a latex package for experimenting with page layouts.

A .layout file for lyx has _nothing_ to do with this package, other than
using the word layout.  A lyx .layout file mainly describes what
paragraph types is available for documents of that sort, as well
as how those paragraph types should be presented in the
lyx editor and what latex code should be generated when
lyx creates latex code for printing.
(Paragraph types are things like standard, enumeration,
bullet list, and headings in various levels.)

Helge Hafting

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

 I am just a little confused at the moment: I had heard that
 Theorem-like environments would be supported by LyX in a reasonable
 way for 1.4.x but I still only have them as latex commands. Is that me
 or does it require x  2?

AFAIK they are only available in the AMS document classes.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Helge Hafting]

Stephen Harris wrote:

Helge Hafting wrote:

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
Word-like--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.




Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a layout editor or in-lyx format edit could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting



You certainly know more about this than I do, so I'll phrase
the next point as a question rather than as an objection.

The *layouts* package: user manual by Peter R. Wilson layman.pdf

The layouts package enables the display of various elements
of a document's layout including: the general page layout;
disposition of floats; layout of paragraphs, lists, footnotes,
table of contents, and sectional headings; font boxes.
Facilities are provided for a document designer to experiment
with the layout parameters.

SH: I think this user manual would be required reading for
creating a new .layout file? Do you think the information
contained is inappropriate for LyX and belongs in a LyX menu?

The layout package is something completely different.
It is a latex package for experimenting with page layouts.

A .layout file for lyx has _nothing_ to do with this package, other than
using the word layout.  A lyx .layout file mainly describes what
paragraph types is available for documents of that sort, as well
as how those paragraph types should be presented in the
lyx editor and what latex code should be generated when
lyx creates latex code for printing.
(Paragraph types are things like standard, enumeration,
bullet list, and headings in various levels.)

Helge Hafting

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

> I am just a little confused at the moment: I had heard that
> Theorem-like environments would be supported by LyX in a reasonable
> way for 1.4.x but I still only have them as latex commands. Is that me
> or does it require x > 2?

AFAIK they are only available in the AMS document classes.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Helge Hafting]

Stephen Harris wrote:

Helge Hafting wrote:

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
"Word-like"--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.




Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a "layout editor" or in-lyx "format edit" could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting



You certainly know more about this than I do, so I'll phrase
the next point as a question rather than as an objection.

The *layouts* package: user manual by Peter R. Wilson layman.pdf

"The layouts package enables the display of various elements
of a document's layout including: the general page layout;
disposition of floats; layout of paragraphs, lists, footnotes,
table of contents, and sectional headings; font boxes.
Facilities are provided for a document designer to experiment
with the layout parameters."

SH: I think this user manual would be required reading for
creating a new .layout file? Do you think the information
contained is inappropriate for LyX and belongs in a LyX menu?

The layout package is something completely different.
It is a latex package for experimenting with page layouts.

A .layout file for lyx has _nothing_ to do with this package, other than
using the word "layout".  A lyx .layout file mainly describes what
paragraph types is available for documents of that sort, as well
as how those paragraph types should be presented in the
lyx editor and what latex code should be generated when
lyx creates latex code for printing.
(Paragraph types are things like standard, enumeration,
bullet list, and headings in various levels.)

Helge Hafting

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

I am just a little confused at the moment: I had heard that
Theorem-like environments would be supported by LyX in a reasonable
way for 1.4.x but I still only have them as latex commands. Is that me
or does it require x  2?

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

I am just a little confused at the moment: I had heard that
Theorem-like environments would be supported by LyX in a reasonable
way for 1.4.x but I still only have them as latex commands. Is that me
or does it require x  2?

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

I am just a little confused at the moment: I had heard that
Theorem-like environments would be supported by LyX in a reasonable
way for 1.4.x but I still only have them as latex commands. Is that me
or does it require x > 2?

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:


Couldn't an html document do a better job, possibly data driven.


wiki?  I'm just suggesting that you can use the wiki to create these 
documents.


One lookup is what you want to do, another is document class, maybe 
another is command/environment. It could also include all the packages 
you can add into your document. For instance, it would be wonderful to 
know that if you want your table of contents to be clickable links in a 
PDF, you need the hyperref package.


Different people could document different packages.

If someone can't find a package to do what they need, THEN they use the 
LaTeX tweaking program to change or create the command/environment.



In such a situation, popup tool tips could easily enough show the
laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
commonly used commands.


I know how to do that in HTML, using CSS, I think.


You can also get popups on the wiki, here's a simple attempt

http://wiki.lyx.org/Playground/TestPopup

Just hold the mouse over ECU for instance. Generally speaking, anything 
you can do with HTML is doable on the wiki (although it might take some 
customization).


cheers
/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:


Couldn't an html document do a better job, possibly data driven.


wiki?  I'm just suggesting that you can use the wiki to create these 
documents.


One lookup is what you want to do, another is document class, maybe 
another is command/environment. It could also include all the packages 
you can add into your document. For instance, it would be wonderful to 
know that if you want your table of contents to be clickable links in a 
PDF, you need the hyperref package.


Different people could document different packages.

If someone can't find a package to do what they need, THEN they use the 
LaTeX tweaking program to change or create the command/environment.



In such a situation, popup tool tips could easily enough show the
laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
commonly used commands.


I know how to do that in HTML, using CSS, I think.


You can also get popups on the wiki, here's a simple attempt

http://wiki.lyx.org/Playground/TestPopup

Just hold the mouse over ECU for instance. Generally speaking, anything 
you can do with HTML is doable on the wiki (although it might take some 
customization).


cheers
/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:


Couldn't an html document do a better job, possibly data driven.


wiki?  I'm just suggesting that you can use the wiki to create these 
documents.


One lookup is "what you want to do", another is document class, maybe 
another is command/environment. It could also include all the packages 
you can add into your document. For instance, it would be wonderful to 
know that if you want your table of contents to be clickable links in a 
PDF, you need the hyperref package.


Different people could document different packages.

If someone can't find a package to do what they need, THEN they use the 
LaTeX tweaking program to change or create the command/environment.



In such a situation, popup "tool tips" could easily enough show the
laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
commonly used commands.


I know how to do that in HTML, using CSS, I think.


You can also get popups on the wiki, here's a simple attempt

http://wiki.lyx.org/Playground/TestPopup

Just hold the mouse over "ECU" for instance. Generally speaking, anything 
you can do with HTML is doable on the wiki (although it might take some 
customization).


cheers
/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Helge Hafting]

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
Word-like--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.

I'll give you a simple example: let us say a lawyer wants to create a
pleadings layout. As it stands, he may look all over the Web for one
already done, or he may begin to dig into the existing methods for
doing so--and thus to climb the learning curve. While the latter may
be more beneficial in the long run, the simple fact is that for many
the time available to master a complex subject is insufficient. At the
same time, LyX would be absolutely ideal for a law office in many
respects, far beyond what Word can offer.

Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a layout editor or in-lyx format edit could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Helge Hafting wrote:

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
Word-like--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.




Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a layout editor or in-lyx format edit could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting



You certainly know more about this than I do, so I'll phrase
the next point as a question rather than as an objection.

The *layouts* package: user manual by Peter R. Wilson layman.pdf

The layouts package enables the display of various elements
of a document's layout including: the general page layout;
disposition of floats; layout of paragraphs, lists, footnotes,
table of contents, and sectional headings; font boxes.
Facilities are provided for a document designer to experiment
with the layout parameters.

SH: I think this user manual would be required reading for
creating a new .layout file? Do you think the information
contained is inappropriate for LyX and belongs in a LyX menu?

Regards,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Thursday 25 May 2006 07:43 pm, Stephen Harris wrote:
[clip]
 Designing such a menu seems quite ambitious, even for a
 subset of possibilities. I would have thought it impossible
 if Steve Litt, who wrote the layout tutorial, hadn't said
 he thought it was a good idea. It just seems so dynamic!

I envision a small subset of the totality of possible environment and command 
tweaks. Certainly fonts are fairly easy, at least I think so. Margins might 
be pretty easy. Once somebody (like me with some help) has delivered margins 
and fonts, others will add other functionality as it gains popularity.

 What we need here is a breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence,
 so I'm having trouble fathoming building a menu-driven new .cls
 or .layout file creator as even a debatable possibility that
 doesn't need expert human supervision and knowledge feedback.
 I am really interested to see how this (can possibly) works.

Hi Stephen,

I'm not necessarily saying it wouldn't need some human intervention, nor am I 
saying it would always produce exactly the right results, especially at 
first. However, without the menu driven interface, most people would just 
give up. Only a huge need kept me from giving up.

Probably the layout tweaking program would need to be accompanied by LaTeX 
documentation, and by that I mean how to modify LaTeX, not just a listing of 
all the commands.


 The proof of the pudding is in the eating not the view,

That's true. Half the projects I bragged that I'd create never saw the light 
of day.

SteveT
 
Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Thursday 25 May 2006 08:30 pm, David Neeley wrote:
[clip]

 That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
 writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
 documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
 tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
 complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

Amen, Brother!


 At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
 authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
 these files to be printed properly--although printed these days
 increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
 extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

[clip]

 For example, I could easily see a separate software environment in
 which samples of each of the layouts included with LyX could be called
 up, with content including instructions on the various particulars of
 that format. As it stands, learning the various uses of the included
 layout files is chaotic at best, so seeing such sample files onscreen
 would be a great help. That would also be a great help in determining
 what layout files to use as the basis for any modifications desired.

That would require a person conversant in every document class, plus a very 
good programmer. Couldn't an html document do a better job, possibly data 
driven. One lookup is what you want to do, another is document class, maybe 
another is command/environment. It could also include all the packages you 
can add into your document. For instance, it would be wonderful to know that 
if you want your table of contents to be clickable links in a PDF, you need 
the hyperref package.

Different people could document different packages.

If someone can't find a package to do what they need, THEN they use the LaTeX 
tweaking program to change or create the command/environment.



 In such a situation, popup tool tips could easily enough show the
 laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
 example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
 commonly used commands.

I know how to do that in HTML, using CSS, I think.


Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Helge Hafting]

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
Word-like--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.

I'll give you a simple example: let us say a lawyer wants to create a
pleadings layout. As it stands, he may look all over the Web for one
already done, or he may begin to dig into the existing methods for
doing so--and thus to climb the learning curve. While the latter may
be more beneficial in the long run, the simple fact is that for many
the time available to master a complex subject is insufficient. At the
same time, LyX would be absolutely ideal for a law office in many
respects, far beyond what Word can offer.

Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a layout editor or in-lyx format edit could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Helge Hafting wrote:

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
Word-like--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.




Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a layout editor or in-lyx format edit could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting



You certainly know more about this than I do, so I'll phrase
the next point as a question rather than as an objection.

The *layouts* package: user manual by Peter R. Wilson layman.pdf

The layouts package enables the display of various elements
of a document's layout including: the general page layout;
disposition of floats; layout of paragraphs, lists, footnotes,
table of contents, and sectional headings; font boxes.
Facilities are provided for a document designer to experiment
with the layout parameters.

SH: I think this user manual would be required reading for
creating a new .layout file? Do you think the information
contained is inappropriate for LyX and belongs in a LyX menu?

Regards,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Thursday 25 May 2006 07:43 pm, Stephen Harris wrote:
[clip]
 Designing such a menu seems quite ambitious, even for a
 subset of possibilities. I would have thought it impossible
 if Steve Litt, who wrote the layout tutorial, hadn't said
 he thought it was a good idea. It just seems so dynamic!

I envision a small subset of the totality of possible environment and command 
tweaks. Certainly fonts are fairly easy, at least I think so. Margins might 
be pretty easy. Once somebody (like me with some help) has delivered margins 
and fonts, others will add other functionality as it gains popularity.

 What we need here is a breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence,
 so I'm having trouble fathoming building a menu-driven new .cls
 or .layout file creator as even a debatable possibility that
 doesn't need expert human supervision and knowledge feedback.
 I am really interested to see how this (can possibly) works.

Hi Stephen,

I'm not necessarily saying it wouldn't need some human intervention, nor am I 
saying it would always produce exactly the right results, especially at 
first. However, without the menu driven interface, most people would just 
give up. Only a huge need kept me from giving up.

Probably the layout tweaking program would need to be accompanied by LaTeX 
documentation, and by that I mean how to modify LaTeX, not just a listing of 
all the commands.


 The proof of the pudding is in the eating not the view,

That's true. Half the projects I bragged that I'd create never saw the light 
of day.

SteveT
 
Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Thursday 25 May 2006 08:30 pm, David Neeley wrote:
[clip]

 That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
 writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
 documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
 tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
 complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

Amen, Brother!


 At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
 authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
 these files to be printed properly--although printed these days
 increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
 extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

[clip]

 For example, I could easily see a separate software environment in
 which samples of each of the layouts included with LyX could be called
 up, with content including instructions on the various particulars of
 that format. As it stands, learning the various uses of the included
 layout files is chaotic at best, so seeing such sample files onscreen
 would be a great help. That would also be a great help in determining
 what layout files to use as the basis for any modifications desired.

That would require a person conversant in every document class, plus a very 
good programmer. Couldn't an html document do a better job, possibly data 
driven. One lookup is what you want to do, another is document class, maybe 
another is command/environment. It could also include all the packages you 
can add into your document. For instance, it would be wonderful to know that 
if you want your table of contents to be clickable links in a PDF, you need 
the hyperref package.

Different people could document different packages.

If someone can't find a package to do what they need, THEN they use the LaTeX 
tweaking program to change or create the command/environment.



 In such a situation, popup tool tips could easily enough show the
 laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
 example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
 commonly used commands.

I know how to do that in HTML, using CSS, I think.


Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Helge Hafting]

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
"Word-like"--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.

I'll give you a simple example: let us say a lawyer wants to create a
pleadings layout. As it stands, he may look all over the Web for one
already done, or he may begin to dig into the existing methods for
doing so--and thus to climb the learning curve. While the latter may
be more beneficial in the long run, the simple fact is that for many
the time available to master a complex subject is insufficient. At the
same time, LyX would be absolutely ideal for a law office in many
respects, far beyond what Word can offer.

Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a "layout editor" or in-lyx "format edit" could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Helge Hafting wrote:

David Neeley wrote:

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
"Word-like"--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.




Everybody, including lyx developers, want an easier way
to create layout files.  Possibly some GUI thing.

Now, if you had that, could you adjust a layout without
understanding latex commands?  You could, to some extent.
Such a "layout editor" or in-lyx "format edit" could let
you specify that you want section headings in italics, for example.

So some adjustments would then be easy.  Often enough,
you will run up against latex though.  Want to use an
extra package which implements something useful with
commands of its own?  Then you definitely need to
add those commands in the layout editor.

So, a layout editor would allow simple adjustments to
paragraph types - adjustments that lyx already can do
on a case by case basis using the edit menu.

Anything more, and latex knowledge becomes necessary.
A layout editor still have the advantage that you don't also
need knowledge of the lyx-specific .layout file format.
Any latex guy would be able to use it to its full power.

Helge Hafting



You certainly know more about this than I do, so I'll phrase
the next point as a question rather than as an objection.

The *layouts* package: user manual by Peter R. Wilson layman.pdf

"The layouts package enables the display of various elements
of a document's layout including: the general page layout;
disposition of floats; layout of paragraphs, lists, footnotes,
table of contents, and sectional headings; font boxes.
Facilities are provided for a document designer to experiment
with the layout parameters."

SH: I think this user manual would be required reading for
creating a new .layout file? Do you think the information
contained is inappropriate for LyX and belongs in a LyX menu?

Regards,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Thursday 25 May 2006 07:43 pm, Stephen Harris wrote:
[clip]
> Designing such a menu seems quite ambitious, even for a
> subset of possibilities. I would have thought it impossible
> if Steve Litt, who wrote the layout tutorial, hadn't said
> he thought it was a good idea. It just seems so dynamic!

I envision a small subset of the totality of possible environment and command 
tweaks. Certainly fonts are fairly easy, at least I think so. Margins might 
be pretty easy. Once somebody (like me with some help) has delivered margins 
and fonts, others will add other functionality as it gains popularity.

> What we need here is a breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence,
> so I'm having trouble fathoming building a menu-driven new .cls
> or .layout file creator as even a debatable possibility that
> doesn't need expert human supervision and knowledge feedback.
> I am really interested to see how this (can possibly) works.

Hi Stephen,

I'm not necessarily saying it wouldn't need some human intervention, nor am I 
saying it would always produce exactly the right results, especially at 
first. However, without the menu driven interface, most people would just 
give up. Only a huge need kept me from giving up.

Probably the layout tweaking program would need to be accompanied by LaTeX 
documentation, and by that I mean how to modify LaTeX, not just a listing of 
all the commands.

>
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating not the view,

That's true. Half the projects I bragged that I'd create never saw the light 
of day.

SteveT
 
Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Thursday 25 May 2006 08:30 pm, David Neeley wrote:
[clip]

> That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
> writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
> documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
> tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
> complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

Amen, Brother!

>
> At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
> authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
> these files to be printed properly--although "printed" these days
> increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
> extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

[clip]

> For example, I could easily see a separate software environment in
> which samples of each of the layouts included with LyX could be called
> up, with content including instructions on the various particulars of
> that format. As it stands, learning the various uses of the included
> layout files is chaotic at best, so seeing such sample files onscreen
> would be a great help. That would also be a great help in determining
> what layout files to use as the basis for any modifications desired.

That would require a person conversant in every document class, plus a very 
good programmer. Couldn't an html document do a better job, possibly data 
driven. One lookup is "what you want to do", another is document class, maybe 
another is command/environment. It could also include all the packages you 
can add into your document. For instance, it would be wonderful to know that 
if you want your table of contents to be clickable links in a PDF, you need 
the hyperref package.

Different people could document different packages.

If someone can't find a package to do what they need, THEN they use the LaTeX 
tweaking program to change or create the command/environment.


>
> In such a situation, popup "tool tips" could easily enough show the
> laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
> example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
> commonly used commands.

I know how to do that in HTML, using CSS, I think.


Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Jan Peters wrote:

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as 
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at 
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.

Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down a 
couple of

weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the required
ease of use.


Don't hold your breath but I am quite confident that it will be possible 
in the 1.5 time frame with the Qt4 frontend. As Georg said in another 
thread, GUI developers are not very numerous, maybe only one truly 
active on the GUI side at a time. So if you know a little C++ and are 
willing to learn Qt there are plenty of (easy) things to do and your 
help would be much appreciated.


Abdel.

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Jan Peters wrote:

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as  
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.
Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down  
a couple of
weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the  
required

ease of use.


Don't hold your breath but I am quite confident that it will be  
possible in the 1.5 time frame with the Qt4 frontend. As Georg said  
in another thread, GUI developers are not very numerous, maybe only  
one truly active on the GUI side at a time. So if you know a little  
C++ and are willing to learn Qt there are plenty of (easy) things  
to do and your help would be much appreciated.


Once I have completed my Ph.D. thesis, I will be happy to help on that.
I fooled around in the LyX code three years ago, during the first  
porting

to Mac. Until then, all my programming needs to be thesis related.

As soon as your guys have reconfigurable toolbars (1.5.x?) with pull- 
down
toolbuttons (see http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace), I promise

to create all toolbars necessary so that every toolbar SWP has,
will also be available in LyX...

Best,
-Jan

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing
from LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too

steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

SH: The above earlier remark apparently is amplified and clarified
by  what I meant to say ... quoted below


Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

 So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical
 interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual
 options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would
 allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a
 single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if
 you gave them that.


---

Steve Litt replied:

 I'd *LOVE* to have a tool like that. One of my hardest jobs as a self 
publishing author is tweaking my layouts so that my book's look and 
feel will be pleasing to my audience. I do that in the layout file so 
as to present a consistent look and feel throughout the book. But 
tweaking layout files is a daunting task complete with huge amounts of 
debugging time.


 If someone creates a tool like that, my one request is they don't 
make it dependent on the latest version of this_library and the latest 
version of that_library to the point where one would need to redo their 
whole Linux distribution to run the program. There's nothing inherant 
about making a layout constructing/modifying program requiring the 
latest of anything -- a simple Perl web app could do the job, or a 
simple Perl curses or tk app.


 In fact, a text menu plus something to choose alternatives would do 
it. Maybe I could even glue it together with UMENU 
(http://www.troubleshooters.com/umenu/index.htm).


 What I like about what you said is that we include a subset of the 
universe of LaTeX tweaks, not try to do everything (which as one person 
in this thread stated, might be more difficult than TeX itself).


 If we do this, and if we spend most of our energy on the problem 
domain (layout construction) rather than figuring out intricacies of Tk, 
KDE, wxPython or whatever, I'd like to be part of the crew that does it.


 Should we start designing it on this mailing list?

 Thanks, SteveT

---


SH: Steve Litt has written a good IMO, tutorial on layouts:

http://www.troubleshooters.com/lpm/200210/200210.htm#_MakingYourOwnLayout

Making a Book By Steve Litt

In this exercise you'll learn to choose a document class. You'll learn
about the relationship between your document class and the available
environments (remember, that's LyXese for paragraph styles). You'll make
a tiny book and view it in Postscript. You'll manipulate the margins, 
and the interparagraph spacing. You'll go beyond the defaults by 
indenting paragraphs AND giving them a large skip. You'll change the 
book's default font size and typeface. You'll customize the headers and 
footers. You'll use a little ERT to customize the title page. And you'll 
structure your document into Parts, Chapters, Sections, and Subsections.

...
A document class is similar to a template in MS Word in that it 
determines the available styles, and what they'll look like.





http://www.troubleshooters.com/lpm/200210/200210.htm#_MakingYourOwnLayout

Changing the Paragraph Spacing and Indentation By Steve Litt

As mentioned, Skip and Indent are mutually exclusive on the Document 
Layout screen, but nothing in LaTeX makes them mutually exclusive. So 
we'll set the skip with a LaTeX command in the global part of the 
document. In LaTeX (and LyX), the global part of the document is called 
the Document Preamble, so that's where we'll put the LaTeX command.


Layout-LaTeX Preamble, then type in the following LaTeX command:

\setlength{\parindent}{1in}

The preceding sets the length of document variable \parindent to one 
inch. Now click the OK button, and File-Save, then View-Postscript, 
and notice that your paragraphs are not only spaced widely, but also 
indented.


You might wonder how I knew the command \setlength{\parindent}{1in}.
I read about it in the lshort.dvi document. This is why I say you should
read the documents. This solution would have been difficult to find 
without reading the documentation. There's no point and click way to 
find it.


Making Your Own Layout By Steve Litt

...But if you're self-publishing, or if you're writing an academic 
paper that is required to be formatted just so, or for whatever reason 
your format is constrained by others, you'll need to change and/or add 
to what your document class gives you. Basically, you'll need to build a 
new document 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

Citando a Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal.


First of all, calling any suggestion a completely ignorant notion 
contributes more to a flame war than to intelligent debate. Particularly 
if by your own admission you are assuming a lot of things to be implied 
by my original post.




I wrote this when I thought there was nothing to debate. My description
was meant to be factual not insulting, I purposefully avoided the term
stupid. I still think this idea is completely misguided by your lack of
information. However, Steve Litt, who I think is way more expert than I
am on this matter, has come out in favor of your idea. If he is correct,
then I am the way-undereducated dummy. It is already very easy to make
a simplistic layout file that works.



http://wiki.lyx.org/Layouts/CreatingLayouts

Find the basis class for your new class. Lets assume, the LaTeX class 
amcsiggraph.cls is a descendant of article.cls, then the lyx layout to 
use is article.layout. Save the following to a file acmsiggraph.layout 
in your layouts directory (~/.lyx/layouts/ on UNIX):



#% Do not delete the line below; configure depends on this
#  \DeclareLaTeXClass[acmsiggraph]{ACM SigGraph}

# Read the definitions from article.layout
Input article.layout



So your menu idea has to be simpler or more effective than this
method described above and I don't see it at all. So I did assume
that you meant something more, like the average Word user can
select from a subset of Latex codes, perhaps with a more
meaningful name, and produce a visually optimized appearance.
IOW, it would do the tweaking for you, or the average Word user.
There is no such program for anyone, Latex genius or Word user,
and there will not be for years to come (if ever).



The original poster, Enrique said in part:



So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical 
interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual 
options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would allow 
them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a single 
line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if you gave 
them that.



SH: Looking at how incredibly difficult it is to create a .layout


What is incredibly easy for the advanced user is a major roadblock for 
the casual user. Call it what you may, the casual user wants to get 
stuff done without having to learn much in the process.




You didn't recognize this as sarcasm. It takes about 90 seconds to
create a simple layout file using the method described above, where you 
don't create one from scratch, but modify a pre-existing layout file.

Find the basis class for your new class; presenting a small challenge.


Right now, creating a .layout requires to:
- Do stuff outside the LyX GUI
- Write code (opening the door to potential typos, for example)

Both are major no-no's when designing software for the casual user. Most 
casual users simply won't be up to these tasks.




The quick and dirty method mostly requires cut and paste and Save As,
or import as lines (.layout is a text file) and edit specific values
from the older layout file used as a model.

But for this to be useful one needs to test the tweaking. You seem
to think writing code is the issue which is susceptible to typos.
I don't. I think knowing what code to write is the issue, what the
code does. How can you select from a menu-driven interface the
correct option if you don't already know what the option/function
(latex/lyx code) already does?? This is not a problem just for the
Word average user, but for any Lyx user. Automatically creating
a brand new layout file that does what you envision is beyond state
of the art software.

I think your mis-impression is that what is a learning curve for
the average LyX user can be simplified so that the learning is
erased for the average Word user. I don't think this will be
possible for years to come. The layout menu program can provide
choices for selection with a mouse-click, but is going to offer
very little intelligence about what choices (and their values)
ought to be made to produce the desired tweaked appearance output.

The layout menu program isn't going to eliminate the many cycles
of polishing reruns of the layout file, similar to polishing a
Wiki post but more complicated.


As a software designer, one can have an elitist attitude and say If the 
user can't do this, (s)he's too stupid/lazy to use the program. But I 
think the creators of LyX would very much like it to be as mainstream as 
Word. In various documents they state the WYSIWYM 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[christian . ridderstrom]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from LyX 
is the ability to create new document classes with custom enviroments 
using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep 
a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


Are you talking about document classes or layouts here? They are quite 
different. One is instructions for the appearance of your document after 
it has been processed by LaTeX, the other how your document should be 
presented on screen by LyX.


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document is 
well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be able 
to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing some 
minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one from 
scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with (typo)graphical 
talents.


/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Rich Shepard]

On Fri, 26 May 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document is
well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be able
to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing some
minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one from
scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with (typo)graphical
talents.


/Christian,

  Page layout design requires the expertise of a graphic artist. If you want
to get a good idea of what's involved, read the documentation for the Memoir
class. _Everything_ there is user ajustable. Of course, you can spend all
your time fine tuning instead of writing, but ... to each his own.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. |  The Environmental Permitting
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.(TM)  |  Accelerator
http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from 
LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too 
steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


Are you talking about document classes or layouts here? They are quite 
different. One is instructions for the appearance of your document after 
it has been processed by LaTeX, the other how your document should be 
presented on screen by LyX.


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document 
is well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be 
able to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing 
some minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one 
from scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with 
(typo)graphical talents.


/Christian



Well, there are already a menu-driven screens under Document
for text layout and page layout for instance. So they already
exist and don't need to be created for the average Word user.

Lyx comes with layout files. But sometimes you get a strange .cls
file from the internet (ACM recently) that needs to have a .layout
file created for it (Latex refresh fndb and Reconfigure LyX).

The casual user, LyXer or Word, modifies a closest fit
pre-existing layout file and you don't need to do much.
Creating such a file from scratch, or even tweaking the
new modified file takes quite a bit of knowledge that one
isn't going to (cannot) find neatly presented on a menu,
(like the quickdirty method).

Designing such a menu seems quite ambitious, even for a
subset of possibilities. I would have thought it impossible
if Steve Litt, who wrote the layout tutorial, hadn't said
he thought it was a good idea. It just seems so dynamic!
What we need here is a breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence,
so I'm having trouble fathoming building a menu-driven new .cls
or .layout file creator as even a debatable possibility that
doesn't need expert human supervision and knowledge feedback.
I am really interested to see how this (can possibly) works.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating not the view,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David Neeley]

Stephen,

First, I should say that using terms such as what silly nonsense
does *not* impress others as having any sort of open or constructive
attitude. Instead, it comes across as condescending, to put it mildly.

As for your assertion that Word has failed for years as program of
choice for technical writers--that simply betrays that you know
little of the current tech writing profession. Although I am new to
LyX and laTeX, I *have* been a tech writer for the better part of
twenty years, and am a longtime member of the Society for Technical
Communications. Although I personally cannot *stand* Word for tech
writing, I would estimate that roughly half of all the commercial tech
writing projects today use it. You are correct, though, that the
Master Document feature is an abortion and has never worked
properly--and thus it is rarely attempted for tech pubs work. The more
compelling problem, I believe, is the brain-dead autonumbering in
Word.

Many projects within the tech writing field today are done in
FrameMaker, which Adobe has not *quite* managed to kill yet. However,
they seem to be working to fold more long document features into
InDesign with each upgrade, with their intention being to use its code
base as a next-generation documentation tool.

I know of very few shops using TeX in any flavor for tech
documentation--although it seems to be far more popular in academia
than it is in commercial software development.

That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
these files to be printed properly--although printed these days
increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

Where I think discussions like this can be most productive is to
address comments on what you believe to be their merits and not by
dismissing them with pejoritives. Otherwise, you simply drive away
people who may be extremely helpful additions to the user community.

Rather than dismissing these comments out of hand with some notion of
what cannot be done given the present state of the program, why not
address the ideas based upon whether they are truly desirable on their
merits, with the method of producing such a result left to a separate
discussion.

For example, I could easily see a separate software environment in
which samples of each of the layouts included with LyX could be called
up, with content including instructions on the various particulars of
that format. As it stands, learning the various uses of the included
layout files is chaotic at best, so seeing such sample files onscreen
would be a great help. That would also be a great help in determining
what layout files to use as the basis for any modifications desired.

In such a situation, popup tool tips could easily enough show the
laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
commonly used commands.

With such sample and instruction files, a variety of options could be
set to result in the layout alterations desired, and saved when the
software environment is changed back to the regular production
interface.

This would, I believe, be just one method of making the details to
which people have referred relatively easy (at least for basic
changes), while not complicating the basic interface and menu
selections unduly.

This is but an offhand suggestion I have not thought through
completely. However, I offer it as a potential means of arriving at
the goal of a more easily-mastered layout designer. It is similar in
some respects to the development environment of the early Xerox
workstations, which had one environment for average users in whcih
there were no real development options, and another one for
developmers in which alterations (hacks in their jargon at the time)
could be easily made, and saved for use in the normal environment.
This was in the days of the 6085 workstation and, before that, the
Star system. Thus, there are few truly new ideas around--but many old
ones are very worthwhile for considering how to address problems
today.

David

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

David Neeley wrote:

Stephen,

First, I should say that using terms such as what silly nonsense
does *not* impress others as having any sort of open or constructive
attitude. Instead, it comes across as condescending, to put it mildly.



The statement I criticized was: But I think the creators of LyX would 
very much like it to be as mainstream as Word.


I was polite. An honest description would have been: A blatant lie
told to cover up his previous ignorant remarks. There are no LyX
developers who are that stupid or out of touch with reality. LyX
doesn't have even a remote chance of achieving Word mainstream
status, that fantasy is a crackpot notion. It was such a pitifully
inept argument.



As for your assertion that Word has failed for years as program of
choice for technical writers--that simply betrays that you know
little of the current tech writing profession. Although I am new to
LyX and laTeX, I *have* been a tech writer for the better part of
twenty years, and am a longtime member of the Society for Technical
Communications. Although I personally cannot *stand* Word for tech
writing, I would estimate that roughly half of all the commercial tech
writing projects today use it. 


Quite a few technical writers must use Word because it is required
by their employers. That doesn't make it the program of choice by
the writers themselves except for junior writers who don't know
any better and some fanatics. I assert that it is a fairly universal
opinion held by qualified technical writers: Word sucks for technical
writers. I saw this on the FrameMaker mailing list for years and
occasionally on TECHWR-L Archives when I monitored it.

Your estimate of half confirms what I said. Word should own
90% of the tech writing market just if it were a decent program,
and 90% or higher is what you see in small businesses that don't
have a tech writing staff. Your remark has no bearing on what
I stated. An employer dictated, must use program,  due to employer
ignorance, cost of replacement, or other other obligation, is not
equivalent to the tech writers using Word as their
program of choice.


You are correct, though, that the
Master Document feature is an abortion and has never worked
properly--and thus it is rarely attempted for tech pubs work. The more
compelling problem, I believe, is the brain-dead autonumbering in
Word.

Many projects within the tech writing field today are done in
FrameMaker, which Adobe has not *quite* managed to kill yet. However,
they seem to be working to fold more long document features into
InDesign with each upgrade, with their intention being to use its code
base as a next-generation documentation tool.

I know of very few shops using TeX in any flavor for tech
documentation--although it seems to be far more popular in academia
than it is in commercial software development.

That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
these files to be printed properly--although printed these days
increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

Where I think discussions like this can be most productive is to
address comments on what you believe to be their merits and not by
dismissing them with pejoritives. Otherwise, you simply drive away
people who may be extremely helpful additions to the user community.



Maybe you missed my post where I said my description wasn't meant
to be an insult. I meant it as an objective, factual assessment.
I meant his idea had no merit because the idea was worthless as
there is no way to create much of an improvement beyond the way
it is done now. He presented his wish as if it were feasible.
Your ideas are also vague because you don't see the difficulty.



Rather than dismissing these comments out of hand with some notion of
what cannot be done given the present state of the program, why not
address the ideas based upon whether they are truly desirable on their
merits, with the method of producing such a result left to a separate
discussion.



This appears to be a false dichotomy. Nobody has questioned whether
an automatic .cls and .layout menu driven file creator would be a
nice thing to have. My objection is that it is wishful thinking,
not a feasible project and the people who don't know that, are
ignorant of the requirements. That it would be a good thing if
possible is so obvious it doesn't need discussion. I don't think
there need to be two discussions. Just one relevant discussion.

I will eat my words if Steve Litt, who does own a qualified opinion,

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Jan Peters wrote:

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as 
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at 
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.

Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down a 
couple of

weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the required
ease of use.


Don't hold your breath but I am quite confident that it will be possible 
in the 1.5 time frame with the Qt4 frontend. As Georg said in another 
thread, GUI developers are not very numerous, maybe only one truly 
active on the GUI side at a time. So if you know a little C++ and are 
willing to learn Qt there are plenty of (easy) things to do and your 
help would be much appreciated.


Abdel.

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Jan Peters wrote:

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as  
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.
Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down  
a couple of
weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the  
required

ease of use.


Don't hold your breath but I am quite confident that it will be  
possible in the 1.5 time frame with the Qt4 frontend. As Georg said  
in another thread, GUI developers are not very numerous, maybe only  
one truly active on the GUI side at a time. So if you know a little  
C++ and are willing to learn Qt there are plenty of (easy) things  
to do and your help would be much appreciated.


Once I have completed my Ph.D. thesis, I will be happy to help on that.
I fooled around in the LyX code three years ago, during the first  
porting

to Mac. Until then, all my programming needs to be thesis related.

As soon as your guys have reconfigurable toolbars (1.5.x?) with pull- 
down
toolbuttons (see http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace), I promise

to create all toolbars necessary so that every toolbar SWP has,
will also be available in LyX...

Best,
-Jan

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing
from LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too

steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

SH: The above earlier remark apparently is amplified and clarified
by  what I meant to say ... quoted below


Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

 So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical
 interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual
 options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would
 allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a
 single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if
 you gave them that.


---

Steve Litt replied:

 I'd *LOVE* to have a tool like that. One of my hardest jobs as a self 
publishing author is tweaking my layouts so that my book's look and 
feel will be pleasing to my audience. I do that in the layout file so 
as to present a consistent look and feel throughout the book. But 
tweaking layout files is a daunting task complete with huge amounts of 
debugging time.


 If someone creates a tool like that, my one request is they don't 
make it dependent on the latest version of this_library and the latest 
version of that_library to the point where one would need to redo their 
whole Linux distribution to run the program. There's nothing inherant 
about making a layout constructing/modifying program requiring the 
latest of anything -- a simple Perl web app could do the job, or a 
simple Perl curses or tk app.


 In fact, a text menu plus something to choose alternatives would do 
it. Maybe I could even glue it together with UMENU 
(http://www.troubleshooters.com/umenu/index.htm).


 What I like about what you said is that we include a subset of the 
universe of LaTeX tweaks, not try to do everything (which as one person 
in this thread stated, might be more difficult than TeX itself).


 If we do this, and if we spend most of our energy on the problem 
domain (layout construction) rather than figuring out intricacies of Tk, 
KDE, wxPython or whatever, I'd like to be part of the crew that does it.


 Should we start designing it on this mailing list?

 Thanks, SteveT

---


SH: Steve Litt has written a good IMO, tutorial on layouts:

http://www.troubleshooters.com/lpm/200210/200210.htm#_MakingYourOwnLayout

Making a Book By Steve Litt

In this exercise you'll learn to choose a document class. You'll learn
about the relationship between your document class and the available
environments (remember, that's LyXese for paragraph styles). You'll make
a tiny book and view it in Postscript. You'll manipulate the margins, 
and the interparagraph spacing. You'll go beyond the defaults by 
indenting paragraphs AND giving them a large skip. You'll change the 
book's default font size and typeface. You'll customize the headers and 
footers. You'll use a little ERT to customize the title page. And you'll 
structure your document into Parts, Chapters, Sections, and Subsections.

...
A document class is similar to a template in MS Word in that it 
determines the available styles, and what they'll look like.





http://www.troubleshooters.com/lpm/200210/200210.htm#_MakingYourOwnLayout

Changing the Paragraph Spacing and Indentation By Steve Litt

As mentioned, Skip and Indent are mutually exclusive on the Document 
Layout screen, but nothing in LaTeX makes them mutually exclusive. So 
we'll set the skip with a LaTeX command in the global part of the 
document. In LaTeX (and LyX), the global part of the document is called 
the Document Preamble, so that's where we'll put the LaTeX command.


Layout-LaTeX Preamble, then type in the following LaTeX command:

\setlength{\parindent}{1in}

The preceding sets the length of document variable \parindent to one 
inch. Now click the OK button, and File-Save, then View-Postscript, 
and notice that your paragraphs are not only spaced widely, but also 
indented.


You might wonder how I knew the command \setlength{\parindent}{1in}.
I read about it in the lshort.dvi document. This is why I say you should
read the documents. This solution would have been difficult to find 
without reading the documentation. There's no point and click way to 
find it.


Making Your Own Layout By Steve Litt

...But if you're self-publishing, or if you're writing an academic 
paper that is required to be formatted just so, or for whatever reason 
your format is constrained by others, you'll need to change and/or add 
to what your document class gives you. Basically, you'll need to build a 
new document 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

Citando a Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal.


First of all, calling any suggestion a completely ignorant notion 
contributes more to a flame war than to intelligent debate. Particularly 
if by your own admission you are assuming a lot of things to be implied 
by my original post.




I wrote this when I thought there was nothing to debate. My description
was meant to be factual not insulting, I purposefully avoided the term
stupid. I still think this idea is completely misguided by your lack of
information. However, Steve Litt, who I think is way more expert than I
am on this matter, has come out in favor of your idea. If he is correct,
then I am the way-undereducated dummy. It is already very easy to make
a simplistic layout file that works.



http://wiki.lyx.org/Layouts/CreatingLayouts

Find the basis class for your new class. Lets assume, the LaTeX class 
amcsiggraph.cls is a descendant of article.cls, then the lyx layout to 
use is article.layout. Save the following to a file acmsiggraph.layout 
in your layouts directory (~/.lyx/layouts/ on UNIX):



#% Do not delete the line below; configure depends on this
#  \DeclareLaTeXClass[acmsiggraph]{ACM SigGraph}

# Read the definitions from article.layout
Input article.layout



So your menu idea has to be simpler or more effective than this
method described above and I don't see it at all. So I did assume
that you meant something more, like the average Word user can
select from a subset of Latex codes, perhaps with a more
meaningful name, and produce a visually optimized appearance.
IOW, it would do the tweaking for you, or the average Word user.
There is no such program for anyone, Latex genius or Word user,
and there will not be for years to come (if ever).



The original poster, Enrique said in part:



So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical 
interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual 
options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would allow 
them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a single 
line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if you gave 
them that.



SH: Looking at how incredibly difficult it is to create a .layout


What is incredibly easy for the advanced user is a major roadblock for 
the casual user. Call it what you may, the casual user wants to get 
stuff done without having to learn much in the process.




You didn't recognize this as sarcasm. It takes about 90 seconds to
create a simple layout file using the method described above, where you 
don't create one from scratch, but modify a pre-existing layout file.

Find the basis class for your new class; presenting a small challenge.


Right now, creating a .layout requires to:
- Do stuff outside the LyX GUI
- Write code (opening the door to potential typos, for example)

Both are major no-no's when designing software for the casual user. Most 
casual users simply won't be up to these tasks.




The quick and dirty method mostly requires cut and paste and Save As,
or import as lines (.layout is a text file) and edit specific values
from the older layout file used as a model.

But for this to be useful one needs to test the tweaking. You seem
to think writing code is the issue which is susceptible to typos.
I don't. I think knowing what code to write is the issue, what the
code does. How can you select from a menu-driven interface the
correct option if you don't already know what the option/function
(latex/lyx code) already does?? This is not a problem just for the
Word average user, but for any Lyx user. Automatically creating
a brand new layout file that does what you envision is beyond state
of the art software.

I think your mis-impression is that what is a learning curve for
the average LyX user can be simplified so that the learning is
erased for the average Word user. I don't think this will be
possible for years to come. The layout menu program can provide
choices for selection with a mouse-click, but is going to offer
very little intelligence about what choices (and their values)
ought to be made to produce the desired tweaked appearance output.

The layout menu program isn't going to eliminate the many cycles
of polishing reruns of the layout file, similar to polishing a
Wiki post but more complicated.


As a software designer, one can have an elitist attitude and say If the 
user can't do this, (s)he's too stupid/lazy to use the program. But I 
think the creators of LyX would very much like it to be as mainstream as 
Word. In various documents they state the WYSIWYM 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[christian . ridderstrom]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from LyX 
is the ability to create new document classes with custom enviroments 
using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep 
a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


Are you talking about document classes or layouts here? They are quite 
different. One is instructions for the appearance of your document after 
it has been processed by LaTeX, the other how your document should be 
presented on screen by LyX.


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document is 
well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be able 
to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing some 
minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one from 
scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with (typo)graphical 
talents.


/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Rich Shepard]

On Fri, 26 May 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document is
well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be able
to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing some
minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one from
scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with (typo)graphical
talents.


/Christian,

  Page layout design requires the expertise of a graphic artist. If you want
to get a good idea of what's involved, read the documentation for the Memoir
class. _Everything_ there is user ajustable. Of course, you can spend all
your time fine tuning instead of writing, but ... to each his own.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. |  The Environmental Permitting
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.(TM)  |  Accelerator
http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from 
LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too 
steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


Are you talking about document classes or layouts here? They are quite 
different. One is instructions for the appearance of your document after 
it has been processed by LaTeX, the other how your document should be 
presented on screen by LyX.


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document 
is well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be 
able to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing 
some minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one 
from scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with 
(typo)graphical talents.


/Christian



Well, there are already a menu-driven screens under Document
for text layout and page layout for instance. So they already
exist and don't need to be created for the average Word user.

Lyx comes with layout files. But sometimes you get a strange .cls
file from the internet (ACM recently) that needs to have a .layout
file created for it (Latex refresh fndb and Reconfigure LyX).

The casual user, LyXer or Word, modifies a closest fit
pre-existing layout file and you don't need to do much.
Creating such a file from scratch, or even tweaking the
new modified file takes quite a bit of knowledge that one
isn't going to (cannot) find neatly presented on a menu,
(like the quickdirty method).

Designing such a menu seems quite ambitious, even for a
subset of possibilities. I would have thought it impossible
if Steve Litt, who wrote the layout tutorial, hadn't said
he thought it was a good idea. It just seems so dynamic!
What we need here is a breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence,
so I'm having trouble fathoming building a menu-driven new .cls
or .layout file creator as even a debatable possibility that
doesn't need expert human supervision and knowledge feedback.
I am really interested to see how this (can possibly) works.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating not the view,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David Neeley]

Stephen,

First, I should say that using terms such as what silly nonsense
does *not* impress others as having any sort of open or constructive
attitude. Instead, it comes across as condescending, to put it mildly.

As for your assertion that Word has failed for years as program of
choice for technical writers--that simply betrays that you know
little of the current tech writing profession. Although I am new to
LyX and laTeX, I *have* been a tech writer for the better part of
twenty years, and am a longtime member of the Society for Technical
Communications. Although I personally cannot *stand* Word for tech
writing, I would estimate that roughly half of all the commercial tech
writing projects today use it. You are correct, though, that the
Master Document feature is an abortion and has never worked
properly--and thus it is rarely attempted for tech pubs work. The more
compelling problem, I believe, is the brain-dead autonumbering in
Word.

Many projects within the tech writing field today are done in
FrameMaker, which Adobe has not *quite* managed to kill yet. However,
they seem to be working to fold more long document features into
InDesign with each upgrade, with their intention being to use its code
base as a next-generation documentation tool.

I know of very few shops using TeX in any flavor for tech
documentation--although it seems to be far more popular in academia
than it is in commercial software development.

That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
these files to be printed properly--although printed these days
increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

Where I think discussions like this can be most productive is to
address comments on what you believe to be their merits and not by
dismissing them with pejoritives. Otherwise, you simply drive away
people who may be extremely helpful additions to the user community.

Rather than dismissing these comments out of hand with some notion of
what cannot be done given the present state of the program, why not
address the ideas based upon whether they are truly desirable on their
merits, with the method of producing such a result left to a separate
discussion.

For example, I could easily see a separate software environment in
which samples of each of the layouts included with LyX could be called
up, with content including instructions on the various particulars of
that format. As it stands, learning the various uses of the included
layout files is chaotic at best, so seeing such sample files onscreen
would be a great help. That would also be a great help in determining
what layout files to use as the basis for any modifications desired.

In such a situation, popup tool tips could easily enough show the
laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
commonly used commands.

With such sample and instruction files, a variety of options could be
set to result in the layout alterations desired, and saved when the
software environment is changed back to the regular production
interface.

This would, I believe, be just one method of making the details to
which people have referred relatively easy (at least for basic
changes), while not complicating the basic interface and menu
selections unduly.

This is but an offhand suggestion I have not thought through
completely. However, I offer it as a potential means of arriving at
the goal of a more easily-mastered layout designer. It is similar in
some respects to the development environment of the early Xerox
workstations, which had one environment for average users in whcih
there were no real development options, and another one for
developmers in which alterations (hacks in their jargon at the time)
could be easily made, and saved for use in the normal environment.
This was in the days of the 6085 workstation and, before that, the
Star system. Thus, there are few truly new ideas around--but many old
ones are very worthwhile for considering how to address problems
today.

David

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

David Neeley wrote:

Stephen,

First, I should say that using terms such as what silly nonsense
does *not* impress others as having any sort of open or constructive
attitude. Instead, it comes across as condescending, to put it mildly.



The statement I criticized was: But I think the creators of LyX would 
very much like it to be as mainstream as Word.


I was polite. An honest description would have been: A blatant lie
told to cover up his previous ignorant remarks. There are no LyX
developers who are that stupid or out of touch with reality. LyX
doesn't have even a remote chance of achieving Word mainstream
status, that fantasy is a crackpot notion. It was such a pitifully
inept argument.



As for your assertion that Word has failed for years as program of
choice for technical writers--that simply betrays that you know
little of the current tech writing profession. Although I am new to
LyX and laTeX, I *have* been a tech writer for the better part of
twenty years, and am a longtime member of the Society for Technical
Communications. Although I personally cannot *stand* Word for tech
writing, I would estimate that roughly half of all the commercial tech
writing projects today use it. 


Quite a few technical writers must use Word because it is required
by their employers. That doesn't make it the program of choice by
the writers themselves except for junior writers who don't know
any better and some fanatics. I assert that it is a fairly universal
opinion held by qualified technical writers: Word sucks for technical
writers. I saw this on the FrameMaker mailing list for years and
occasionally on TECHWR-L Archives when I monitored it.

Your estimate of half confirms what I said. Word should own
90% of the tech writing market just if it were a decent program,
and 90% or higher is what you see in small businesses that don't
have a tech writing staff. Your remark has no bearing on what
I stated. An employer dictated, must use program,  due to employer
ignorance, cost of replacement, or other other obligation, is not
equivalent to the tech writers using Word as their
program of choice.


You are correct, though, that the
Master Document feature is an abortion and has never worked
properly--and thus it is rarely attempted for tech pubs work. The more
compelling problem, I believe, is the brain-dead autonumbering in
Word.

Many projects within the tech writing field today are done in
FrameMaker, which Adobe has not *quite* managed to kill yet. However,
they seem to be working to fold more long document features into
InDesign with each upgrade, with their intention being to use its code
base as a next-generation documentation tool.

I know of very few shops using TeX in any flavor for tech
documentation--although it seems to be far more popular in academia
than it is in commercial software development.

That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
these files to be printed properly--although printed these days
increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

Where I think discussions like this can be most productive is to
address comments on what you believe to be their merits and not by
dismissing them with pejoritives. Otherwise, you simply drive away
people who may be extremely helpful additions to the user community.



Maybe you missed my post where I said my description wasn't meant
to be an insult. I meant it as an objective, factual assessment.
I meant his idea had no merit because the idea was worthless as
there is no way to create much of an improvement beyond the way
it is done now. He presented his wish as if it were feasible.
Your ideas are also vague because you don't see the difficulty.



Rather than dismissing these comments out of hand with some notion of
what cannot be done given the present state of the program, why not
address the ideas based upon whether they are truly desirable on their
merits, with the method of producing such a result left to a separate
discussion.



This appears to be a false dichotomy. Nobody has questioned whether
an automatic .cls and .layout menu driven file creator would be a
nice thing to have. My objection is that it is wishful thinking,
not a feasible project and the people who don't know that, are
ignorant of the requirements. That it would be a good thing if
possible is so obvious it doesn't need discussion. I don't think
there need to be two discussions. Just one relevant discussion.

I will eat my words if Steve Litt, who does own a qualified opinion,

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Jan Peters wrote:

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as 
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at 
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.

Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down a 
couple of

weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the required
ease of use.


Don't hold your breath but I am quite confident that it will be possible 
in the 1.5 time frame with the Qt4 frontend. As Georg said in another 
thread, GUI developers are not very numerous, maybe only one truly 
active on the GUI side at a time. So if you know a little C++ and are 
willing to learn Qt there are plenty of (easy) things to do and your 
help would be much appreciated.


Abdel.

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Jan Peters wrote:

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as  
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.
Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down  
a couple of
weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the  
required

ease of use.


Don't hold your breath but I am quite confident that it will be  
possible in the 1.5 time frame with the Qt4 frontend. As Georg said  
in another thread, GUI developers are not very numerous, maybe only  
one truly active on the GUI side at a time. So if you know a little  
C++ and are willing to learn Qt there are plenty of (easy) things  
to do and your help would be much appreciated.


Once I have completed my Ph.D. thesis, I will be happy to help on that.
I fooled around in the LyX code three years ago, during the first  
porting

to Mac. Until then, all my programming needs to be thesis related.

As soon as your guys have reconfigurable toolbars (1.5.x?) with pull- 
down
toolbuttons (see http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace), I promise

to create all toolbars necessary so that every toolbar SWP has,
will also be available in LyX...

Best,
-Jan

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing
from LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too

steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

SH: The above earlier remark apparently is amplified and clarified
by  "what I meant to say" ... quoted below


Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

>> So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical
>> interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual
>> options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would
>> allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a
>> single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if
>> you gave them that.
>

---

Steve Litt replied:

> I'd *LOVE* to have a tool like that. One of my hardest jobs as a self 
publishing author is tweaking my layouts so that my book's "look and 
feel" will be pleasing to my audience. I do that in the layout file so 
as to present a consistent "look and feel" throughout the book. But 
tweaking layout files is a daunting task complete with huge amounts of 
debugging time.

>
> If someone creates a tool like that, my one request is they don't 
make it dependent on the latest version of this_library and the latest 
version of that_library to the point where one would need to redo their 
whole Linux distribution to run the program. There's nothing inherant 
about making a layout constructing/modifying program requiring the 
latest of anything -- a simple Perl web app could do the job, or a 
simple Perl curses or tk app.

>
> In fact, a text menu plus something to choose alternatives would do 
it. Maybe I could even glue it together with UMENU 
(http://www.troubleshooters.com/umenu/index.htm).

>
> What I like about what you said is that we include a subset of the 
universe of LaTeX tweaks, not try to do everything (which as one person 
in this thread stated, might be more difficult than TeX itself).

>
> If we do this, and if we spend most of our energy on the problem 
domain (layout construction) rather than figuring out intricacies of Tk, 
KDE, wxPython or whatever, I'd like to be part of the crew that does it.

>
> Should we start designing it on this mailing list?
>
> Thanks, SteveT

---


SH: Steve Litt has written a good IMO, tutorial on layouts:

http://www.troubleshooters.com/lpm/200210/200210.htm#_MakingYourOwnLayout

Making a Book By Steve Litt

"In this exercise you'll learn to choose a document class. You'll learn
about the relationship between your document class and the available
environments (remember, that's LyXese for paragraph styles). You'll make
a tiny book and view it in Postscript. You'll manipulate the margins, 
and the interparagraph spacing. You'll go beyond the defaults by 
indenting paragraphs AND giving them a large skip. You'll change the 
book's default font size and typeface. You'll customize the headers and 
footers. You'll use a little ERT to customize the title page. And you'll 
structure your document into Parts, Chapters, Sections, and Subsections.

...
A document class is similar to a template in MS Word in that it 
determines the available styles, and what they'll look like."





http://www.troubleshooters.com/lpm/200210/200210.htm#_MakingYourOwnLayout

Changing the Paragraph Spacing and Indentation By Steve Litt

"As mentioned, Skip and Indent are mutually exclusive on the Document 
Layout screen, but nothing in LaTeX makes them mutually exclusive. So 
we'll set the skip with a LaTeX command in the global part of the 
document. In LaTeX (and LyX), the global part of the document is called 
the "Document Preamble", so that's where we'll put the LaTeX command.


Layout->LaTeX Preamble, then type in the following LaTeX command:

\setlength{\parindent}{1in}

The preceding sets the length of document variable \parindent to one 
inch. Now click the OK button, and File->Save, then View->Postscript, 
and notice that your paragraphs are not only spaced widely, but also 
indented.


You might wonder how I knew the command \setlength{\parindent}{1in}.
I read about it in the lshort.dvi document. This is why I say you should
read the documents. This solution would have been difficult to find 
without reading the documentation. There's no "point and click" way to 
find it."


Making Your Own Layout By Steve Litt

..."But if you're self-publishing, or if you're writing an academic 
paper that is required to be formatted "just so", or for whatever reason 
your format is constrained by others, you'll need to change and/or add 
to what your document class gives you. 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

Citando a Stephen Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal.


First of all, calling any suggestion a "completely ignorant notion" 
contributes more to a flame war than to intelligent debate. Particularly 
if by your own admission you are assuming a lot of things to be implied 
by my original post.




I wrote this when I thought there was nothing to debate. My description
was meant to be factual not insulting, I purposefully avoided the term
stupid. I still think this idea is completely misguided by your lack of
information. However, Steve Litt, who I think is way more expert than I
am on this matter, has come out in favor of your idea. If he is correct,
then I am the way-undereducated dummy. It is already very easy to make
a simplistic layout file that works.



http://wiki.lyx.org/Layouts/CreatingLayouts

"Find the basis class for your new class. Lets assume, the LaTeX class 
amcsiggraph.cls is a descendant of article.cls, then the lyx layout to 
use is article.layout. Save the following to a file acmsiggraph.layout 
in your layouts directory (~/.lyx/layouts/ on UNIX):



#% Do not delete the line below; configure depends on this
#  \DeclareLaTeXClass[acmsiggraph]{ACM SigGraph}

# Read the definitions from article.layout
Input article.layout



So your menu idea has to be simpler or more effective than this
method described above and I don't see it at all. So I did assume
that you meant something more, like the average Word user can
select from a subset of Latex codes, perhaps with a more
meaningful name, and produce a visually optimized appearance.
IOW, it would do the tweaking for you, or the average Word user.
There is no such program for anyone, Latex genius or Word user,
and there will not be for years to come (if ever).



The original poster, Enrique said in part:



So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical 
interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual 
options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would allow 
them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a single 
line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if you gave 
them that.



SH: Looking at how incredibly difficult it is to create a .layout


What is incredibly easy for the advanced user is a major roadblock for 
the casual user. Call it what you may, the casual user wants to get 
stuff done without having to learn much in the process.




You didn't recognize this as sarcasm. It takes about 90 seconds to
create a simple layout file using the method described above, where you 
don't create one from scratch, but modify a pre-existing layout file.

"Find the basis class for your new class"; presenting a small challenge.


Right now, creating a .layout requires to:
- Do stuff outside the LyX GUI
- Write code (opening the door to potential typos, for example)

Both are major no-no's when designing software for the casual user. Most 
casual users simply won't be up to these tasks.




The quick and dirty method mostly requires cut and paste and Save As,
or import as lines (.layout is a text file) and edit specific values
from the older layout file used as a model.

But for this to be useful one needs to test the tweaking. You seem
to think writing code is the issue which is susceptible to typos.
I don't. I think knowing what code to write is the issue, what the
code does. How can you select from a menu-driven interface the
correct option if you don't already know what the option/function
(latex/lyx code) already does?? This is not a problem just for the
Word average user, but for any Lyx user. Automatically creating
a brand new layout file that does what you envision is beyond state
of the art software.

I think your mis-impression is that what is a learning curve for
the average LyX user can be simplified so that the learning is
erased for the average Word user. I don't think this will be
possible for years to come. The layout menu program can provide
choices for selection with a mouse-click, but is going to offer
very little intelligence about what choices (and their values)
ought to be made to produce the desired tweaked appearance output.

The layout menu program isn't going to eliminate the many cycles
of polishing reruns of the layout file, similar to polishing a
Wiki post but more complicated.


As a software designer, one can have an elitist attitude and say "If the 
user can't do this, (s)he's too stupid/lazy to use the program". But I 
think the creators of LyX would very much like it to be as mainstream as 
Word. In various documents they state 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[christian . ridderstrom]

Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from LyX 
is the ability to create new document classes with custom enviroments 
using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep 
a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


Are you talking about document classes or layouts here? They are quite 
different. One is instructions for the appearance of your document after 
it has been processed by LaTeX, the other how your document should be 
presented on screen by LyX.


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document is 
well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be able 
to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing some 
minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one from 
scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with (typo)graphical 
talents.


/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Rich Shepard]

On Fri, 26 May 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document is
well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be able
to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing some
minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one from
scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with (typo)graphical
talents.


/Christian,

  Page layout design requires the expertise of a graphic artist. If you want
to get a good idea of what's involved, read the documentation for the Memoir
class. _Everything_ there is user ajustable. Of course, you can spend all
your time fine tuning instead of writing, but ... to each his own.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. |  The Environmental Permitting
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.(TM)  |  Accelerator
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from 
LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too 
steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


Are you talking about document classes or layouts here? They are quite 
different. One is instructions for the appearance of your document after 
it has been processed by LaTeX, the other how your document should be 
presented on screen by LyX.


Btw, in my opinion creating a new typographic appearance for a document 
is well beyound the average user - LyX or Word. In fact, I doubt I'd be 
able to produce something that looks good. (I'm not talking about doing 
some minor tweaking of an existing style here, but actually doing one 
from scratch). If possible, I'd leave this to people with 
(typo)graphical talents.


/Christian



Well, there are already a menu-driven screens under Document
for text layout and page layout for instance. So they already
exist and don't need to be created for the "average Word user".

Lyx comes with layout files. But sometimes you get a strange .cls
file from the internet (ACM recently) that needs to have a .layout
file created for it (Latex refresh fndb and Reconfigure LyX).

The casual user, LyXer or Word, modifies a closest fit
pre-existing layout file and you don't need to do much.
Creating such a file from scratch, or even tweaking the
new modified file takes quite a bit of knowledge that one
isn't going to (cannot) find neatly presented on a menu,
(like the quick method).

Designing such a menu seems quite ambitious, even for a
subset of possibilities. I would have thought it impossible
if Steve Litt, who wrote the layout tutorial, hadn't said
he thought it was a good idea. It just seems so dynamic!
What we need here is a breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence,
so I'm having trouble fathoming building a menu-driven new .cls
or .layout file creator as even a debatable possibility that
doesn't need expert human supervision and knowledge feedback.
I am really interested to see how this (can possibly) works.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating not the view,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David Neeley]

Stephen,

First, I should say that using terms such as "what silly nonsense"
does *not* impress others as having any sort of open or constructive
attitude. Instead, it comes across as condescending, to put it mildly.

As for your assertion that "Word has failed for years as program of
choice for technical writers"--that simply betrays that you know
little of the current tech writing profession. Although I am new to
LyX and laTeX, I *have* been a tech writer for the better part of
twenty years, and am a longtime member of the Society for Technical
Communications. Although I personally cannot *stand* Word for tech
writing, I would estimate that roughly half of all the commercial tech
writing projects today use it. You are correct, though, that the
"Master Document" feature is an abortion and has never worked
properly--and thus it is rarely attempted for tech pubs work. The more
compelling problem, I believe, is the brain-dead autonumbering in
Word.

Many projects within the tech writing field today are done in
FrameMaker, which Adobe has not *quite* managed to kill yet. However,
they seem to be working to fold more long document features into
InDesign with each upgrade, with their intention being to use its code
base as a next-generation documentation tool.

I know of very few shops using TeX in any flavor for tech
documentation--although it seems to be far more popular in academia
than it is in commercial software development.

That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
these files to be printed properly--although "printed" these days
increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

Where I think discussions like this can be most productive is to
address comments on what you believe to be their merits and not by
dismissing them with pejoritives. Otherwise, you simply drive away
people who may be extremely helpful additions to the user community.

Rather than dismissing these comments out of hand with some notion of
what "cannot" be done given the present state of the program, why not
address the ideas based upon whether they are truly desirable on their
merits, with the method of producing such a result left to a separate
discussion.

For example, I could easily see a separate software environment in
which samples of each of the layouts included with LyX could be called
up, with content including instructions on the various particulars of
that format. As it stands, learning the various uses of the included
layout files is chaotic at best, so seeing such sample files onscreen
would be a great help. That would also be a great help in determining
what layout files to use as the basis for any modifications desired.

In such a situation, popup "tool tips" could easily enough show the
laTeX or LyX code required for the given feature (to list just one
example). That would also be extremely helpful in learning the most
commonly used commands.

With such sample and instruction files, a variety of options could be
set to result in the layout alterations desired, and saved when the
software environment is changed back to the regular production
interface.

This would, I believe, be just one method of making the details to
which people have referred relatively easy (at least for basic
changes), while not complicating the basic interface and menu
selections unduly.

This is but an offhand suggestion I have not thought through
completely. However, I offer it as a potential means of arriving at
the goal of a more easily-mastered layout designer. It is similar in
some respects to the development environment of the early Xerox
workstations, which had one environment for average users in whcih
there were no real development options, and another one for
developmers in which alterations ("hacks" in their jargon at the time)
could be easily made, and saved for use in the normal environment.
This was in the days of the 6085 workstation and, before that, the
Star system. Thus, there are few truly new ideas around--but many old
ones are very worthwhile for considering how to address problems
today.

David

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

David Neeley wrote:

Stephen,

First, I should say that using terms such as "what silly nonsense"
does *not* impress others as having any sort of open or constructive
attitude. Instead, it comes across as condescending, to put it mildly.



The statement I criticized was: "But I think the creators of LyX would 
very much like it to be as mainstream as Word."


I was polite. An honest description would have been: A blatant lie
told to cover up his previous ignorant remarks. There are no LyX
developers who are that stupid or out of touch with reality. LyX
doesn't have even a remote chance of achieving Word mainstream
status, that fantasy is a crackpot notion. It was such a pitifully
inept argument.



As for your assertion that "Word has failed for years as program of
choice for technical writers"--that simply betrays that you know
little of the current tech writing profession. Although I am new to
LyX and laTeX, I *have* been a tech writer for the better part of
twenty years, and am a longtime member of the Society for Technical
Communications. Although I personally cannot *stand* Word for tech
writing, I would estimate that roughly half of all the commercial tech
writing projects today use it. 


Quite a few technical writers must use Word because it is required
by their employers. That doesn't make it the program of choice by
the writers themselves except for junior writers who don't know
any better and some fanatics. I assert that it is a fairly universal
opinion held by qualified technical writers: Word sucks for technical
writers. I saw this on the FrameMaker mailing list for years and
occasionally on TECHWR-L Archives when I monitored it.

Your estimate of "half" confirms what I said. Word should own
90% of the tech writing market just if it were a decent program,
and 90% or higher is what you see in small businesses that don't
have a tech writing staff. Your remark has no bearing on what
I stated. An employer dictated, must use program,  due to employer
ignorance, cost of replacement, or other other obligation, is not
equivalent to the tech writers using Word as their
"program of choice".


You are correct, though, that the
"Master Document" feature is an abortion and has never worked
properly--and thus it is rarely attempted for tech pubs work. The more
compelling problem, I believe, is the brain-dead autonumbering in
Word.

Many projects within the tech writing field today are done in
FrameMaker, which Adobe has not *quite* managed to kill yet. However,
they seem to be working to fold more long document features into
InDesign with each upgrade, with their intention being to use its code
base as a next-generation documentation tool.

I know of very few shops using TeX in any flavor for tech
documentation--although it seems to be far more popular in academia
than it is in commercial software development.

That said, I have held on several professional mail lists for tech
writers that the LyX approach seems far better suited for
documentation than other solutions. Entirely too much time is spent by
tech writers fiddling with layout, and version upgrades are
complicated by various style and format overrides in the documents.

At present, I believe that there is increasing interest in XML
authoring solutions, with a document production sequence that permits
these files to be printed properly--although "printed" these days
increasingly does not include printing. Delivery in Acrobat format is
extremely popular and is rapidly replacing printed manual production.

Where I think discussions like this can be most productive is to
address comments on what you believe to be their merits and not by
dismissing them with pejoritives. Otherwise, you simply drive away
people who may be extremely helpful additions to the user community.



Maybe you missed my post where I said my description wasn't meant
to be an insult. I meant it as an objective, factual assessment.
I meant his idea had no merit because the idea was worthless as
there is no way to create much of an improvement beyond the way
it is done now. He presented his wish as if it were feasible.
Your ideas are also vague because you don't see the difficulty.



Rather than dismissing these comments out of hand with some notion of
what "cannot" be done given the present state of the program, why not
address the ideas based upon whether they are truly desirable on their
merits, with the method of producing such a result left to a separate
discussion.



This appears to be a false dichotomy. Nobody has questioned whether
an automatic .cls and .layout menu driven file creator would be a
nice thing to have. My objection is that it is wishful thinking,
not a feasible project and the people who don't know that, are
ignorant of the requirements. That it would be a good thing if
possible is so obvious it doesn't need discussion. I don't think
there need to be two discussions. Just one relevant discussion.

I will eat my words if Steve Litt, who does own a qualified 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Micha Feigin]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:00:22 -0700
Jan Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
  toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
  making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
  Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs
  will be the area where there is the least overlap, and Lyx is needed
  for areas which are not for the average user, it is more specialized:
 
 Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's mistakes
 but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or Mathtype which  
 are currently
 hidden in the math panel (which either costs me half my screen or  
 has to be
 activated every time). Practical math toolbars would really be a  
 MAJOR improvement.
 
 How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?
 

My guess, not much, with the toolbar support from qt. You mostly need the
ability to have second level (maybe more, I don't use the math panel much),
toolbar/menu popups (do the exist by chance ?) and then just implement the math
panel's buttons/menus on the toolbar.

You do need to be able to control the size of the popup toolbar though (number
of rows/columns)

If someone can point me to where the ui file parsing and toolbar building code
is in lyx and tell me if QT has this ability (preferably point me to
documentation), I may have some time to take on the challenge

 -Jan
  
  +++
  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Micha Feigin wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:13:51 -0500
David Neeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Rich,

I read nothing in Mr. Gonzalez' suggestion that would require that you
or anyone else come down to that level. Adding the ability to create
a layout from the LyX GUI does not mean that you would lose any
ability for you to roll your own. It might, though, encourage new
users to get going more quickly--and some of them will be interested
enough to learn how to dig deeper and get the additional power that
comes from mastering the nuts and bolts.



It will probably be much simpler to write a standalone tool/wizard for creating
layout files. I am not sure how cleanly such a tool would integrate with the
lyx interface.



There is already a quick and dirty method for creating layout files.
I think it is faster than using a menu.

When people fine-tune layout files, they usually look for a similar
layout file and edit it. But to fine-tune the file requires knowing
what the different choices generate. If the choices appear on a
menu or a stand-alone tool, the user still has to know what to choose.

What the OP implied was that there would be an algorithm to fine-tune
the layout files, so that an average user wouldn't have to know the
details* in order to optimize the file. Whether by menu or stand-alone
program I think such an algorithm would be very hard to design.
*details = understanding how to use LaTex code, what it does.

I may as well as go out on a limb and say I think such an algorithm
would be more complex and difficult than the original TeX algorithm.

Regards,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Juergen Spitzmueller]

Jan Peters wrote:

 How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?

You discovered that LyX 1.4 comes with a (limited) math toolbar? Covering
everything from the panel in the toolbar is not possible yet, though.

Jürgen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

 How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?

You can have most of it already in the toolbar. Have a look at the files
lib/ui/default.ui and lib/ui/stdtoolbars.ui. They already define a small
math toolbar that is switched off by default. This can be switched on and
expanded to cover almost all math constructs. For example, we have the line

Item Insert integral math-insert \int

in the math toolbar section in stdtoolbars.ui. Adding the line

Item Insert closed integral math-insert \oint

will just work: A new button appears, and it will use the image file 
lib/images/math/oint.xpm. AFAIK the only reason that this toolbar is rather
small is that nobody of the developers uses it. Any contribution that
extends it (or creates an alternative full version) will be welcome. This
may need some new icons in lib/images/math, but apart from that it is
simply creating some new entries in the .ui file.
Any volunteers (also for documenting this)?

Putting the specialized dialogs (e.g. for delimiters) of the math panel into
the toolbar would require some coding, but I don't think it would be too
difficult. If anybody wants to have a try at this I can tell where to look.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 Jan == Jan Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Jan Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's
Jan mistakes but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or
Jan Mathtype which are currently hidden in the math panel (which
Jan either costs me half my screen or has to be activated every
Jan time). Practical math toolbars would really be a MAJOR
Jan improvement.

Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
like these kind of things.

Jan How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the
Jan toolbar?

Probably not so difficult, but still some work.

JMarc

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 Micha == Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Micha My guess, not much, with the toolbar support from qt. You
Micha mostly need the ability to have second level (maybe more, I
Micha don't use the math panel much), toolbar/menu popups (do the
Micha exist by chance ?) and then just implement the math panel's
Micha buttons/menus on the toolbar.

The constraint I will put on this is that this has to be designed in
the current GUI-I framework (not qt-only). We have to define new tags
in ToolbarBackend.C for:

- subtoolbars (use the same syntax as in menus)

- combox (currently, we have only the layout combox, this notion has
  to be extended).

Toolbar building is done in the respective frontends (for ex.
frontends/qt3/QLToolbar.C). 

JMarc

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto]

Citando a Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal.


First of all, calling any suggestion a completely ignorant notion 
contributes more to a flame war than to intelligent debate. 
Particularly if by your own admission you are assuming a lot of things 
to be implied by my original post.



The original poster, Enrique said in part:

 ... or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a learning
 curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

SH: If you don't put ERTs, which I think qualifies as a
single line of LaTeX code, (not just .layouts) inside
the LyX document in order to implement Latex functionality,
how then would it be accomplished? What alternative is
there but to use the menu with Word friendly user jargon?


I think it was quite clear the original question asked for features to 
*add* to LyX to make it more friendly to the Word crowd. There's no 
need to have an exclusive OR mentality. You can add features to make 
LyX more user-friendly and still keep the ERT inset for the advanced 
user.


As someone previously said, most users don't touch 10% of Word's 
features. Likewise, the casual user (the lawyer example seemed quite 
good to me) probably wouldn't need to use 90% or more of the 
functionality offered by LaTeX.


So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical 
interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual 
options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would 
allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a 
single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if 
you gave them that.



Looking at how incredibly difficult it is to create a .layout


What is incredibly easy for the advanced user is a major roadblock for 
the casual user. Call it what you may, the casual user wants to get 
stuff done without having to learn much in the process.


Right now, creating a .layout requires to:
- Do stuff outside the LyX GUI
- Write code (opening the door to potential typos, for example)

Both are major no-no's when designing software for the casual user. 
Most casual users simply won't be up to these tasks.


As a software designer, one can have an elitist attitude and say If 
the user can't do this, (s)he's too stupid/lazy to use the program. 
But I think the creators of LyX would very much like it to be as 
mainstream as Word. In various documents they state the WYSIWYM 
paradigm is better for most tasks people use Word for nowadays.

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 11:01 am, Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

 So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical
 interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual
 options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would
 allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a
 single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if
 you gave them that.

I'd *LOVE* to have a tool like that. One of my hardest jobs as a self 
publishing author is tweaking my layouts so that my book's look and feel 
will be pleasing to my audience. I do that in the layout file so as to 
present a consistent look and feel throughout the book. But tweaking layout 
files is a daunting task complete with huge amounts of debugging time.

If someone creates a tool like that, my one request is they don't make it 
dependent on the latest version of this_library and the latest version of 
that_library to the point where one would need to redo their whole Linux 
distribution to run the program. There's nothing inherant about making a 
layout constructing/modifying program requiring the latest of anything -- a 
simple Perl web app could do the job, or a simple Perl curses or tk app.

In fact, a text menu plus something to choose alternatives would do it. Maybe 
I could even glue it together with UMENU 
(http://www.troubleshooters.com/umenu/index.htm).

What I like about what you said is that we include a subset of the universe of 
LaTeX tweaks, not try to do everything (which as one person in this thread 
stated, might be more difficult than TeX itself).

If we do this, and if we spend most of our energy on the problem domain 
(layout construction) rather than figuring out intricacies of Tk, KDE, 
wxPython or whatever, I'd like to be part of the crew that does it.

Should we start designing it on this mailing list?

Thanks

SteveT

Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Jan Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's
Jan mistakes but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or
Jan Mathtype which are currently hidden in the math panel (which
Jan either costs me half my screen or has to be activated every
Jan time). Practical math toolbars would really be a MAJOR
Jan improvement.

Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
like these kind of things.


Yes, but here come two points:

1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
files, why is there not View-Toolbars-Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
menu which allows this?

2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?
Moving *everything* from the math panel into reconfigurable toolbars
is a must for user friendliness.

Again, since 1.4, I am persuaded that LyX is technically completely
there and few new real features are needed (search and replace
of equations parts; more symbolic math, e.g., see my comparison
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace).
What LyX mainly needs is some *polishing* so that users stay with it
after trying it. Math editing which beats SWP or MathType would
be a very important step.



===
Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. 
(CS,ME)

University of Southern California (USC)
Computational Learning and Motor Control Laboratories (CLMC)
3461 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: +1-213-740-6717, Fax: +1-213-740-1510
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

 1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
 files, why is there not View-Toolbars-Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
 menu which allows this?

Because nobody implemented it.

 2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
 LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?
 Moving *everything* from the math panel into reconfigurable toolbars
 is a must for user friendliness.

Maybe because the developers don't use the math panel? I either use
shortcuts or type in directly the LaTeX code. I use the math panel only for
constructs I need so seldom that I can not remember the short cut. I
personally would not want to have these waisting space in a toolbar.
This does not mean that there is no room for improvement, it is only an
attempt to explain the current situation.

 Again, since 1.4, I am persuaded that LyX is technically completely
 there and few new real features are needed (search and replace
 of equations parts; more symbolic math, e.g., see my comparison
 http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace).
 What LyX mainly needs is some *polishing* so that users stay with it
 after trying it. Math editing which beats SWP or MathType would
 be a very important step.

From your posts it looks like you are not aware that LyX has a developer man
power problem: There are several useful polishing tasks that would be
desirable, but there are not enough developers available who do the work.
And of course (since this is a volunteer project) everybody implements what
he wants to implement, which does not need to be what the majority of users
wants). That explains the strange mix of highly developed areas (e.g.
graphics handling) and other parts that are missing basic features (e.g.
math macros) in LyX.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as  
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.

Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down a  
couple of

weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the required
ease of use.

In order to become the best scientific typesetting solution -- which  
LyX is in terms of technology

just not yet as a user experience --  it needs to be better in equation
editing than Scientific Workplace or Mathtype.

Would people be interested in a set of recommendations for maximizing
LyX's user friendliness? I have shown some general ideas in a comparison
with SWP but I could make the user friendliness recommendations much
more precise.

Best,
-Jan



On May 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Georg Baum wrote:


Jan Peters wrote:


How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?


You can have most of it already in the toolbar. Have a look at the  
files
lib/ui/default.ui and lib/ui/stdtoolbars.ui. They already define a  
small
math toolbar that is switched off by default. This can be switched  
on and
expanded to cover almost all math constructs. For example, we have  
the line


Item Insert integral math-insert \int

in the math toolbar section in stdtoolbars.ui. Adding the line

Item Insert closed integral math-insert \oint

will just work: A new button appears, and it will use the image file
lib/images/math/oint.xpm. AFAIK the only reason that this toolbar  
is rather

small is that nobody of the developers uses it. Any contribution that
extends it (or creates an alternative full version) will be  
welcome. This

may need some new icons in lib/images/math, but apart from that it is
simply creating some new entries in the .ui file.
Any volunteers (also for documenting this)?

Putting the specialized dialogs (e.g. for delimiters) of the math  
panel into
the toolbar would require some coding, but I don't think it would  
be too
difficult. If anybody wants to have a try at this I can tell where  
to look.



Georg



Best wishes,
Jan Peters

===
Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. 
(CS,ME)

University of Southern California (USC)
Computational Learning and Motor Control Laboratories (CLMC)
3461 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: +1-213-740-6717, Fax: +1-213-740-1510
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Ernesto Posse]

 Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
 default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
 file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
 like these kind of things.

Yes, but here come two points:

1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
files, why is there not View-Toolbars-Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
menu which allows this?


 Actually you can activate it in lyx 1.4 without editing the
default.ui file: right-click on the toolbar and you'll get a few
options including the math toolbar.


--
Ernesto Posse
Modelling, Simulation and Design Lab - School of Computer Science
McGill University - Montreal, Quebec, Canada
url: http://moncs.cs.mcgill.ca/people/eposse

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David A. Case]

On Wed, May 24, 2006, Jan Peters wrote:

 2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
 LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?

I think this must depend either on what you are most familiar with, or on what
you expect.  For me, creating and editing equations in LyX is more pleasant
than doing the same with MathType.  (As with other users, I tend to mostly use
keyboard shortcuts, relying on the math panel only for uncommon things that I
don't remember.)  At least for me, MathType seems to require more use of the
mouse, and more manual tweaking to get things to look right.

I have a wide screen, so I like having the math panel off to the side, rather
than in a toolbar at the top.  But that might not be optimal for others.

dave case

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Micha Feigin]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:00:22 -0700
Jan Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
  toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
  making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
  Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs
  will be the area where there is the least overlap, and Lyx is needed
  for areas which are not for the average user, it is more specialized:
 
 Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's mistakes
 but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or Mathtype which  
 are currently
 hidden in the math panel (which either costs me half my screen or  
 has to be
 activated every time). Practical math toolbars would really be a  
 MAJOR improvement.
 
 How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?
 

My guess, not much, with the toolbar support from qt. You mostly need the
ability to have second level (maybe more, I don't use the math panel much),
toolbar/menu popups (do the exist by chance ?) and then just implement the math
panel's buttons/menus on the toolbar.

You do need to be able to control the size of the popup toolbar though (number
of rows/columns)

If someone can point me to where the ui file parsing and toolbar building code
is in lyx and tell me if QT has this ability (preferably point me to
documentation), I may have some time to take on the challenge

 -Jan
  
  +++
  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Micha Feigin wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:13:51 -0500
David Neeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Rich,

I read nothing in Mr. Gonzalez' suggestion that would require that you
or anyone else come down to that level. Adding the ability to create
a layout from the LyX GUI does not mean that you would lose any
ability for you to roll your own. It might, though, encourage new
users to get going more quickly--and some of them will be interested
enough to learn how to dig deeper and get the additional power that
comes from mastering the nuts and bolts.



It will probably be much simpler to write a standalone tool/wizard for creating
layout files. I am not sure how cleanly such a tool would integrate with the
lyx interface.



There is already a quick and dirty method for creating layout files.
I think it is faster than using a menu.

When people fine-tune layout files, they usually look for a similar
layout file and edit it. But to fine-tune the file requires knowing
what the different choices generate. If the choices appear on a
menu or a stand-alone tool, the user still has to know what to choose.

What the OP implied was that there would be an algorithm to fine-tune
the layout files, so that an average user wouldn't have to know the
details* in order to optimize the file. Whether by menu or stand-alone
program I think such an algorithm would be very hard to design.
*details = understanding how to use LaTex code, what it does.

I may as well as go out on a limb and say I think such an algorithm
would be more complex and difficult than the original TeX algorithm.

Regards,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Juergen Spitzmueller]

Jan Peters wrote:

 How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?

You discovered that LyX 1.4 comes with a (limited) math toolbar? Covering
everything from the panel in the toolbar is not possible yet, though.

Jürgen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

 How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?

You can have most of it already in the toolbar. Have a look at the files
lib/ui/default.ui and lib/ui/stdtoolbars.ui. They already define a small
math toolbar that is switched off by default. This can be switched on and
expanded to cover almost all math constructs. For example, we have the line

Item Insert integral math-insert \int

in the math toolbar section in stdtoolbars.ui. Adding the line

Item Insert closed integral math-insert \oint

will just work: A new button appears, and it will use the image file 
lib/images/math/oint.xpm. AFAIK the only reason that this toolbar is rather
small is that nobody of the developers uses it. Any contribution that
extends it (or creates an alternative full version) will be welcome. This
may need some new icons in lib/images/math, but apart from that it is
simply creating some new entries in the .ui file.
Any volunteers (also for documenting this)?

Putting the specialized dialogs (e.g. for delimiters) of the math panel into
the toolbar would require some coding, but I don't think it would be too
difficult. If anybody wants to have a try at this I can tell where to look.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 Jan == Jan Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Jan Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's
Jan mistakes but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or
Jan Mathtype which are currently hidden in the math panel (which
Jan either costs me half my screen or has to be activated every
Jan time). Practical math toolbars would really be a MAJOR
Jan improvement.

Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
like these kind of things.

Jan How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the
Jan toolbar?

Probably not so difficult, but still some work.

JMarc

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 Micha == Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Micha My guess, not much, with the toolbar support from qt. You
Micha mostly need the ability to have second level (maybe more, I
Micha don't use the math panel much), toolbar/menu popups (do the
Micha exist by chance ?) and then just implement the math panel's
Micha buttons/menus on the toolbar.

The constraint I will put on this is that this has to be designed in
the current GUI-I framework (not qt-only). We have to define new tags
in ToolbarBackend.C for:

- subtoolbars (use the same syntax as in menus)

- combox (currently, we have only the layout combox, this notion has
  to be extended).

Toolbar building is done in the respective frontends (for ex.
frontends/qt3/QLToolbar.C). 

JMarc

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto]

Citando a Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal.


First of all, calling any suggestion a completely ignorant notion 
contributes more to a flame war than to intelligent debate. 
Particularly if by your own admission you are assuming a lot of things 
to be implied by my original post.



The original poster, Enrique said in part:

 ... or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a learning
 curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

SH: If you don't put ERTs, which I think qualifies as a
single line of LaTeX code, (not just .layouts) inside
the LyX document in order to implement Latex functionality,
how then would it be accomplished? What alternative is
there but to use the menu with Word friendly user jargon?


I think it was quite clear the original question asked for features to 
*add* to LyX to make it more friendly to the Word crowd. There's no 
need to have an exclusive OR mentality. You can add features to make 
LyX more user-friendly and still keep the ERT inset for the advanced 
user.


As someone previously said, most users don't touch 10% of Word's 
features. Likewise, the casual user (the lawyer example seemed quite 
good to me) probably wouldn't need to use 90% or more of the 
functionality offered by LaTeX.


So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical 
interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual 
options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would 
allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a 
single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if 
you gave them that.



Looking at how incredibly difficult it is to create a .layout


What is incredibly easy for the advanced user is a major roadblock for 
the casual user. Call it what you may, the casual user wants to get 
stuff done without having to learn much in the process.


Right now, creating a .layout requires to:
- Do stuff outside the LyX GUI
- Write code (opening the door to potential typos, for example)

Both are major no-no's when designing software for the casual user. 
Most casual users simply won't be up to these tasks.


As a software designer, one can have an elitist attitude and say If 
the user can't do this, (s)he's too stupid/lazy to use the program. 
But I think the creators of LyX would very much like it to be as 
mainstream as Word. In various documents they state the WYSIWYM 
paradigm is better for most tasks people use Word for nowadays.

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 11:01 am, Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

 So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical
 interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual
 options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would
 allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a
 single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if
 you gave them that.

I'd *LOVE* to have a tool like that. One of my hardest jobs as a self 
publishing author is tweaking my layouts so that my book's look and feel 
will be pleasing to my audience. I do that in the layout file so as to 
present a consistent look and feel throughout the book. But tweaking layout 
files is a daunting task complete with huge amounts of debugging time.

If someone creates a tool like that, my one request is they don't make it 
dependent on the latest version of this_library and the latest version of 
that_library to the point where one would need to redo their whole Linux 
distribution to run the program. There's nothing inherant about making a 
layout constructing/modifying program requiring the latest of anything -- a 
simple Perl web app could do the job, or a simple Perl curses or tk app.

In fact, a text menu plus something to choose alternatives would do it. Maybe 
I could even glue it together with UMENU 
(http://www.troubleshooters.com/umenu/index.htm).

What I like about what you said is that we include a subset of the universe of 
LaTeX tweaks, not try to do everything (which as one person in this thread 
stated, might be more difficult than TeX itself).

If we do this, and if we spend most of our energy on the problem domain 
(layout construction) rather than figuring out intricacies of Tk, KDE, 
wxPython or whatever, I'd like to be part of the crew that does it.

Should we start designing it on this mailing list?

Thanks

SteveT

Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Jan Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's
Jan mistakes but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or
Jan Mathtype which are currently hidden in the math panel (which
Jan either costs me half my screen or has to be activated every
Jan time). Practical math toolbars would really be a MAJOR
Jan improvement.

Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
like these kind of things.


Yes, but here come two points:

1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
files, why is there not View-Toolbars-Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
menu which allows this?

2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?
Moving *everything* from the math panel into reconfigurable toolbars
is a must for user friendliness.

Again, since 1.4, I am persuaded that LyX is technically completely
there and few new real features are needed (search and replace
of equations parts; more symbolic math, e.g., see my comparison
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace).
What LyX mainly needs is some *polishing* so that users stay with it
after trying it. Math editing which beats SWP or MathType would
be a very important step.



===
Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. 
(CS,ME)

University of Southern California (USC)
Computational Learning and Motor Control Laboratories (CLMC)
3461 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: +1-213-740-6717, Fax: +1-213-740-1510
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

 1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
 files, why is there not View-Toolbars-Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
 menu which allows this?

Because nobody implemented it.

 2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
 LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?
 Moving *everything* from the math panel into reconfigurable toolbars
 is a must for user friendliness.

Maybe because the developers don't use the math panel? I either use
shortcuts or type in directly the LaTeX code. I use the math panel only for
constructs I need so seldom that I can not remember the short cut. I
personally would not want to have these waisting space in a toolbar.
This does not mean that there is no room for improvement, it is only an
attempt to explain the current situation.

 Again, since 1.4, I am persuaded that LyX is technically completely
 there and few new real features are needed (search and replace
 of equations parts; more symbolic math, e.g., see my comparison
 http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace).
 What LyX mainly needs is some *polishing* so that users stay with it
 after trying it. Math editing which beats SWP or MathType would
 be a very important step.

From your posts it looks like you are not aware that LyX has a developer man
power problem: There are several useful polishing tasks that would be
desirable, but there are not enough developers available who do the work.
And of course (since this is a volunteer project) everybody implements what
he wants to implement, which does not need to be what the majority of users
wants). That explains the strange mix of highly developed areas (e.g.
graphics handling) and other parts that are missing basic features (e.g.
math macros) in LyX.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as  
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.

Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down a  
couple of

weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the required
ease of use.

In order to become the best scientific typesetting solution -- which  
LyX is in terms of technology

just not yet as a user experience --  it needs to be better in equation
editing than Scientific Workplace or Mathtype.

Would people be interested in a set of recommendations for maximizing
LyX's user friendliness? I have shown some general ideas in a comparison
with SWP but I could make the user friendliness recommendations much
more precise.

Best,
-Jan



On May 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Georg Baum wrote:


Jan Peters wrote:


How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?


You can have most of it already in the toolbar. Have a look at the  
files
lib/ui/default.ui and lib/ui/stdtoolbars.ui. They already define a  
small
math toolbar that is switched off by default. This can be switched  
on and
expanded to cover almost all math constructs. For example, we have  
the line


Item Insert integral math-insert \int

in the math toolbar section in stdtoolbars.ui. Adding the line

Item Insert closed integral math-insert \oint

will just work: A new button appears, and it will use the image file
lib/images/math/oint.xpm. AFAIK the only reason that this toolbar  
is rather

small is that nobody of the developers uses it. Any contribution that
extends it (or creates an alternative full version) will be  
welcome. This

may need some new icons in lib/images/math, but apart from that it is
simply creating some new entries in the .ui file.
Any volunteers (also for documenting this)?

Putting the specialized dialogs (e.g. for delimiters) of the math  
panel into
the toolbar would require some coding, but I don't think it would  
be too
difficult. If anybody wants to have a try at this I can tell where  
to look.



Georg



Best wishes,
Jan Peters

===
Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. 
(CS,ME)

University of Southern California (USC)
Computational Learning and Motor Control Laboratories (CLMC)
3461 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: +1-213-740-6717, Fax: +1-213-740-1510
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Ernesto Posse]

 Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
 default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
 file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
 like these kind of things.

Yes, but here come two points:

1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
files, why is there not View-Toolbars-Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
menu which allows this?


 Actually you can activate it in lyx 1.4 without editing the
default.ui file: right-click on the toolbar and you'll get a few
options including the math toolbar.


--
Ernesto Posse
Modelling, Simulation and Design Lab - School of Computer Science
McGill University - Montreal, Quebec, Canada
url: http://moncs.cs.mcgill.ca/people/eposse

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David A. Case]

On Wed, May 24, 2006, Jan Peters wrote:

 2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
 LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?

I think this must depend either on what you are most familiar with, or on what
you expect.  For me, creating and editing equations in LyX is more pleasant
than doing the same with MathType.  (As with other users, I tend to mostly use
keyboard shortcuts, relying on the math panel only for uncommon things that I
don't remember.)  At least for me, MathType seems to require more use of the
mouse, and more manual tweaking to get things to look right.

I have a wide screen, so I like having the math panel off to the side, rather
than in a toolbar at the top.  But that might not be optimal for others.

dave case

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Micha Feigin]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:00:22 -0700
Jan Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
> > toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
> > making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
> > Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs
> > will be the area where there is the least overlap, and Lyx is needed
> > for areas which are not for the average user, it is more specialized:
> 
> Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's mistakes
> but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or Mathtype which  
> are currently
> "hidden" in the math panel (which either costs me half my screen or  
> has to be
> activated every time). Practical math toolbars would really be a  
> MAJOR improvement.
> 
> How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?
> 

My guess, not much, with the toolbar support from qt. You mostly need the
ability to have second level (maybe more, I don't use the math panel much),
toolbar/menu popups (do the exist by chance ?) and then just implement the math
panel's buttons/menus on the toolbar.

You do need to be able to control the size of the popup toolbar though (number
of rows/columns)

If someone can point me to where the ui file parsing and toolbar building code
is in lyx and tell me if QT has this ability (preferably point me to
documentation), I may have some time to take on the challenge

> -Jan
>  
>  +++
>  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
>  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
> 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

Micha Feigin wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:13:51 -0500
"David Neeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Rich,

I read nothing in Mr. Gonzalez' suggestion that would require that you
or anyone else "come down to that level." Adding the ability to create
a layout from the LyX GUI does not mean that you would lose any
ability for you to "roll your own." It might, though, encourage new
users to get going more quickly--and some of them will be interested
enough to learn how to dig deeper and get the additional power that
comes from mastering the nuts and bolts.



It will probably be much simpler to write a standalone tool/wizard for creating
layout files. I am not sure how cleanly such a tool would integrate with the
lyx interface.



There is already a quick and dirty method for creating layout files.
I think it is faster than using a menu.

When people fine-tune layout files, they usually look for a similar
layout file and edit it. But to fine-tune the file requires knowing
what the different choices generate. If the choices appear on a
menu or a stand-alone tool, the user still has to know what to choose.

What the OP implied was that there would be an algorithm to fine-tune
the layout files, so that an average user wouldn't have to know the
details* in order to optimize the file. Whether by menu or stand-alone
program I think such an algorithm would be very hard to design.
*details = understanding how to use LaTex code, what it does.

I may as well as go out on a limb and say I think such an algorithm
would be more complex and difficult than the original TeX algorithm.

Regards,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Juergen Spitzmueller]

Jan Peters wrote:

> How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?

You discovered that LyX 1.4 comes with a (limited) math toolbar? Covering
everything from the panel in the toolbar is not possible yet, though.

Jürgen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

> How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?

You can have most of it already in the toolbar. Have a look at the files
lib/ui/default.ui and lib/ui/stdtoolbars.ui. They already define a small
math toolbar that is switched off by default. This can be switched on and
expanded to cover almost all math constructs. For example, we have the line

Item "Insert integral" "math-insert \int"

in the math toolbar section in stdtoolbars.ui. Adding the line

Item "Insert closed integral" "math-insert \oint"

will just work: A new button appears, and it will use the image file 
lib/images/math/oint.xpm. AFAIK the only reason that this toolbar is rather
small is that nobody of the developers uses it. Any contribution that
extends it (or creates an alternative "full" version) will be welcome. This
may need some new icons in lib/images/math, but apart from that it is
simply creating some new entries in the .ui file.
Any volunteers (also for documenting this)?

Putting the specialized dialogs (e.g. for delimiters) of the math panel into
the toolbar would require some coding, but I don't think it would be too
difficult. If anybody wants to have a try at this I can tell where to look.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

> "Jan" == Jan Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Jan> Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's
Jan> mistakes but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or
Jan> Mathtype which are currently "hidden" in the math panel (which
Jan> either costs me half my screen or has to be activated every
Jan> time). Practical math toolbars would really be a MAJOR
Jan> improvement.

Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
like these kind of things.

Jan> How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the
Jan> toolbar?

Probably not so difficult, but still some work.

JMarc

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

> "Micha" == Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Micha> My guess, not much, with the toolbar support from qt. You
Micha> mostly need the ability to have second level (maybe more, I
Micha> don't use the math panel much), toolbar/menu popups (do the
Micha> exist by chance ?) and then just implement the math panel's
Micha> buttons/menus on the toolbar.

The constraint I will put on this is that this has to be designed in
the current GUI-I framework (not qt-only). We have to define new tags
in ToolbarBackend.C for:

- subtoolbars (use the same syntax as in menus)

- combox (currently, we have only the layout combox, this notion has
  to be extended).

Toolbar building is done in the respective frontends (for ex.
frontends/qt3/QLToolbar.C). 

JMarc

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto]

Citando a Stephen Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal.


First of all, calling any suggestion a "completely ignorant notion" 
contributes more to a flame war than to intelligent debate. 
Particularly if by your own admission you are assuming a lot of things 
to be implied by my original post.



The original poster, Enrique said in part:

> ... or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a learning
> curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

SH: If you don't put ERTs, which I think qualifies as a
"single line of LaTeX code", (not just .layouts) inside
the LyX document in order to implement Latex functionality,
how then would it be accomplished? What alternative is
there but to use the menu with Word friendly user jargon?


I think it was quite clear the original question asked for features to 
*add* to LyX to make it more friendly to the Word crowd. There's no 
need to have an "exclusive OR" mentality. You can add features to make 
LyX more user-friendly and still keep the ERT inset for the advanced 
user.


As someone previously said, most users don't touch 10% of Word's 
features. Likewise, the casual user (the lawyer example seemed quite 
good to me) probably wouldn't need to use 90% or more of the 
functionality offered by LaTeX.


So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical 
interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual 
options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would 
allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a 
single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if 
you gave them that.



Looking at how incredibly difficult it is to create a .layout


What is incredibly easy for the advanced user is a major roadblock for 
the casual user. Call it what you may, the casual user wants to get 
stuff done without having to learn much in the process.


Right now, creating a .layout requires to:
- Do stuff outside the LyX GUI
- Write code (opening the door to potential typos, for example)

Both are major no-no's when designing software for the casual user. 
Most casual users simply won't be up to these tasks.


As a software designer, one can have an elitist attitude and say "If 
the user can't do this, (s)he's too stupid/lazy to use the program". 
But I think the creators of LyX would very much like it to be as 
mainstream as Word. In various documents they state the WYSIWYM 
paradigm is better for most tasks people use Word for nowadays.

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Steve Litt]

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 11:01 am, Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

> So what I meant to say is that providing the user with a graphical
> interface where they can create layouts and customize the few usual
> options for an enviroment (font family, size, spacing, etc.) would
> allow them to get started. Most users wouldn't need to write even a
> single line of LaTeX code (either in a .layout or in an ERT inset) if
> you gave them that.

I'd *LOVE* to have a tool like that. One of my hardest jobs as a self 
publishing author is tweaking my layouts so that my book's "look and feel" 
will be pleasing to my audience. I do that in the layout file so as to 
present a consistent "look and feel" throughout the book. But tweaking layout 
files is a daunting task complete with huge amounts of debugging time.

If someone creates a tool like that, my one request is they don't make it 
dependent on the latest version of this_library and the latest version of 
that_library to the point where one would need to redo their whole Linux 
distribution to run the program. There's nothing inherant about making a 
layout constructing/modifying program requiring the latest of anything -- a 
simple Perl web app could do the job, or a simple Perl curses or tk app.

In fact, a text menu plus something to choose alternatives would do it. Maybe 
I could even glue it together with UMENU 
(http://www.troubleshooters.com/umenu/index.htm).

What I like about what you said is that we include a subset of the universe of 
LaTeX tweaks, not try to do everything (which as one person in this thread 
stated, might be more difficult than TeX itself).

If we do this, and if we spend most of our energy on the problem domain 
(layout construction) rather than figuring out intricacies of Tk, KDE, 
wxPython or whatever, I'd like to be part of the crew that does it.

Should we start designing it on this mailing list?

Thanks

SteveT

Steve Litt
Author: 
   * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware
   * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   * Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
   * Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore
http://www.troubleshooters.com/utp/tcourses.htm

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Jan> Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's
Jan> mistakes but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or
Jan> Mathtype which are currently "hidden" in the math panel (which
Jan> either costs me half my screen or has to be activated every
Jan> time). Practical math toolbars would really be a MAJOR
Jan> improvement.

Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
like these kind of things.


Yes, but here come two points:

1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
files, why is there not View->Toolbars->Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
menu which allows this?

2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?
Moving *everything* from the math panel into reconfigurable toolbars
is a must for user friendliness.

Again, since 1.4, I am persuaded that LyX is technically completely
there and few new real features are needed (search and replace
of equations parts; more symbolic math, e.g., see my comparison
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace).
What LyX mainly needs is some *polishing* so that users stay with it
after trying it. Math editing which beats SWP or MathType would
be a very important step.



===
Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. 
(CS,ME)

University of Southern California (USC)
Computational Learning and Motor Control Laboratories (CLMC)
3461 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: +1-213-740-6717, Fax: +1-213-740-1510
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Georg Baum]

Jan Peters wrote:

> 1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
> files, why is there not View->Toolbars->Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
> menu which allows this?

Because nobody implemented it.

> 2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
> LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?
> Moving *everything* from the math panel into reconfigurable toolbars
> is a must for user friendliness.

Maybe because the developers don't use the math panel? I either use
shortcuts or type in directly the LaTeX code. I use the math panel only for
constructs I need so seldom that I can not remember the short cut. I
personally would not want to have these waisting space in a toolbar.
This does not mean that there is no room for improvement, it is only an
attempt to explain the current situation.

> Again, since 1.4, I am persuaded that LyX is technically completely
> there and few new real features are needed (search and replace
> of equations parts; more symbolic math, e.g., see my comparison
> http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace).
> What LyX mainly needs is some *polishing* so that users stay with it
> after trying it. Math editing which beats SWP or MathType would
> be a very important step.

>From your posts it looks like you are not aware that LyX has a developer man
power problem: There are several useful polishing tasks that would be
desirable, but there are not enough developers available who do the work.
And of course (since this is a volunteer project) everybody implements what
he wants to implement, which does not need to be what the majority of users
wants). That explains the strange mix of highly developed areas (e.g.
graphics handling) and other parts that are missing basic features (e.g.
math macros) in LyX.


Georg

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

Thanks, Georg. I knew about the possibility of adding symbols to the
toolbar and the little math toolbar is nice. However, what would be
needed are buttons where I can click and, e.g., get all symbols as  
pull-down
menu (see the SWP-LyX comparison at http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ 
LyxVersusScientificWorkplace),

etc.  Similar to what SWP or Mathtype have.

Is that possible with LyX yet? If so, I will be happy to sit down a  
couple of

weekends and create a nice demo setup which would provide the required
ease of use.

In order to become the best scientific typesetting solution -- which  
LyX is in terms of technology

just not yet as a user experience --  it needs to be better in equation
editing than Scientific Workplace or Mathtype.

Would people be interested in a set of recommendations for maximizing
LyX's user friendliness? I have shown some general ideas in a comparison
with SWP but I could make the user friendliness recommendations much
more precise.

Best,
-Jan



On May 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Georg Baum wrote:


Jan Peters wrote:


How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?


You can have most of it already in the toolbar. Have a look at the  
files
lib/ui/default.ui and lib/ui/stdtoolbars.ui. They already define a  
small
math toolbar that is switched off by default. This can be switched  
on and
expanded to cover almost all math constructs. For example, we have  
the line


Item "Insert integral" "math-insert \int"

in the math toolbar section in stdtoolbars.ui. Adding the line

Item "Insert closed integral" "math-insert \oint"

will just work: A new button appears, and it will use the image file
lib/images/math/oint.xpm. AFAIK the only reason that this toolbar  
is rather

small is that nobody of the developers uses it. Any contribution that
extends it (or creates an alternative "full" version) will be  
welcome. This

may need some new icons in lib/images/math, but apart from that it is
simply creating some new entries in the .ui file.
Any volunteers (also for documenting this)?

Putting the specialized dialogs (e.g. for delimiters) of the math  
panel into
the toolbar would require some coding, but I don't think it would  
be too
difficult. If anybody wants to have a try at this I can tell where  
to look.



Georg



Best wishes,
Jan Peters

===
Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. 
(CS,ME)

University of Southern California (USC)
Computational Learning and Motor Control Laboratories (CLMC)
3461 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: +1-213-740-6717, Fax: +1-213-740-1510
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Ernesto Posse]

> Do you know that we already have a math toolbar. It is disabled by
> default, and enabling it currently means editing the ui/default.ui
> file. It can be made to pop up automatically in maths, for those who
> like these kind of things.

Yes, but here come two points:

1) it should be possible to activate these without going into the text
files, why is there not View->Toolbars->Math,Extra,MiniBuffer,etc
menu which allows this?


 Actually you can activate it in lyx 1.4 without editing the
default.ui file: right-click on the toolbar and you'll get a few
options including the math toolbar.


--
Ernesto Posse
Modelling, Simulation and Design Lab - School of Computer Science
McGill University - Montreal, Quebec, Canada
url: http://moncs.cs.mcgill.ca/people/eposse

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David A. Case]

On Wed, May 24, 2006, Jan Peters wrote:

> 2) Why is it still a less pleasant experience to edit an equation in
> LyX than in either MathType (oh horror) or Scientific Workplace?

I think this must depend either on what you are most familiar with, or on what
you expect.  For me, creating and editing equations in LyX is more pleasant
than doing the same with MathType.  (As with other users, I tend to mostly use
keyboard shortcuts, relying on the math panel only for uncommon things that I
don't remember.)  At least for me, MathType seems to require more use of the
mouse, and more manual "tweaking" to get things to look right.

I have a wide screen, so I like having the math panel off to the side, rather
than in a toolbar at the top.  But that might not be optimal for others.

dave case

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto]

Greetings,

 As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from 
LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


 I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too 
steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


 -- Enrique
 The stupider your target user, the larger your potential market.

 P.D. Thanks for the tips on the accent problem. Switching to 1.4.1 
did solve it. It seems your psychic powers are in no need of any 
upgrade whatsoever. ;)



Original message:
A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

Jan Peters
Sun, 21 May 2006 01:08:35 -0700
I have attempted to outline what LyX can still learn from scientific 
workplace and vice versa. Its not the world but it is the part which 
makes the users


base change from enthusiasts to commoners. Please check out

http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace
http://www.jan-peters.net/Computer/LyxVsSwp

Feel free to drop me a line - I mainly want to start people to start 
thinking what LyX needs to become commonplace ... and completely 
replace Scientific


Workplace on my desk and Word on my supervisors desk.

Best wishes,
-Jan

===

Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. (CS,ME)

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Rich Shepard]

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:


I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but writing
.layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a learning
curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


  Then, perhaps, the average Word user should stick to that and not make any
attempts to learn LaTeX, or even LyX. For those with learning disabilities,
stick to what's available in shrink-wrapped packages for the Microsoft
environment. Don't suggest that the rest of us come down to that level.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. |  The Environmental Permitting
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.(TM)  |  Accelerator
http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David Neeley]

Rich,

I read nothing in Mr. Gonzalez' suggestion that would require that you
or anyone else come down to that level. Adding the ability to create
a layout from the LyX GUI does not mean that you would lose any
ability for you to roll your own. It might, though, encourage new
users to get going more quickly--and some of them will be interested
enough to learn how to dig deeper and get the additional power that
comes from mastering the nuts and bolts.

I am by no means a completely clueless newby--yet I am new to LyX
and to LaTeX. Thus, I am in the earlier parts of the learning curve. I
believe that some ability to more easily operate from the LyX
interface to create or modify layouts would be a boon to faster
productivity.

For example, I am now working on a document that should be a great
help in getting my next job. I am doing it in LyX simply to have
something that will cause me to continue to dig in and expand my
familiarity that much faster. However, dealing with little things that
should be easy to find is taking far longer than writing the document
itself. I can see that as I become more familiar with things, my
writing time should decline greatly, even compared to all the word
processors I am familiar with (which includes most of the ones you
have heard of over the past twenty years or so--part of my consulting
work over the years has included evaluation of software and hardware
tools for businesses and organizations of all sorts).

My work has led me to believe that the word processing paradigm is
wrong for those actually interested in productivity with a
high-quality end result. When I have done technical writing
assignments, I have learned firsthand how many people screw up their
documents by not learning to use styles intelligently--leading to
major problems in doing version upgrades of documentation. In my view,
therefore, the LyX approach would enforce a more sensible practice,
making future revisions that much easier to deal with. That is, in
fact, why I began this process.

That said, there are some fairly obvious things that could make life
easier for everyone--and Mr.Gonzalez' suggestion is a very major one.
That anyone might resent the idea of making things easier for the new
or casual user is unfortunate. However, this is a large reason that
LyX has not taken off far more than it has.

David

On 5/23/06, Rich Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

 I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but writing
 .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a learning
 curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

   Then, perhaps, the average Word user should stick to that and not make any
attempts to learn LaTeX, or even LyX. For those with learning disabilities,
stick to what's available in shrink-wrapped packages for the Microsoft
environment. Don't suggest that the rest of us come down to that level.

Rich

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

David Neeley wrote:

Rich,

I read nothing in Mr. Gonzalez' suggestion that would require that you
or anyone else come down to that level. Adding the ability to create
a layout from the LyX GUI does not mean that you would lose any
ability for you to roll your own. It might, though, encourage new
users to get going more quickly--and some of them will be interested
enough to learn how to dig deeper and get the additional power that
comes from mastering the nuts and bolts.

I am by no means a completely clueless newby--yet I am new to LyX
and to LaTeX. Thus, I am in the earlier parts of the learning curve. I
believe that some ability to more easily operate from the LyX
interface to create or modify layouts would be a boon to faster
productivity.

For example, I am now working on a document that should be a great
help in getting my next job. I am doing it in LyX simply to have
something that will cause me to continue to dig in and expand my
familiarity that much faster. However, dealing with little things that
should be easy to find is taking far longer than writing the document
itself. I can see that as I become more familiar with things, my
writing time should decline greatly, even compared to all the word
processors I am familiar with (which includes most of the ones you
have heard of over the past twenty years or so--part of my consulting
work over the years has included evaluation of software and hardware
tools for businesses and organizations of all sorts).

My work has led me to believe that the word processing paradigm is
wrong for those actually interested in productivity with a
high-quality end result. When I have done technical writing
assignments, I have learned firsthand how many people screw up their
documents by not learning to use styles intelligently--leading to
major problems in doing version upgrades of documentation. In my view,
therefore, the LyX approach would enforce a more sensible practice,
making future revisions that much easier to deal with. That is, in
fact, why I began this process.

That said, there are some fairly obvious things that could make life
easier for everyone--and Mr.Gonzalez' suggestion is a very major one.
That anyone might resent the idea of making things easier for the new
or casual user is unfortunate. However, this is a large reason that
LyX has not taken off far more than it has.

David

On 5/23/06, Rich Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:

 I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing
 .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a 
learning

 curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

   Then, perhaps, the average Word user should stick to that and not 
make any
attempts to learn LaTeX, or even LyX. For those with learning 
disabilities,

stick to what's available in shrink-wrapped packages for the Microsoft
environment. Don't suggest that the rest of us come down to that level.

Rich




LyX is a front-end for Latex. Word should not be compared to LyX, but
perhaps to OpenOffice. WinEdt, Scientific Workplace (SWP) or maybe
Texnic are in the same category and have a great deal more relevance
when considering inspirations for menus and toolbars.

The average Word user has no need at all for LyX. The average Word
user doesn't even use 1/10 of Word's capability, much less those
areas in which LyX/Latex are superior to Word.

 Enrique: or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a
 learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

LyX is for those who have encountered the limitations of Word.
LyX was never intended to be a replacement for Word or duplicate
its functions although there is some overlap.
I can't think of any good reason for the average Word user
to learn LyX. LyX/Latex is for those who are not average Word users.

 David: -and Mr.Gonzalez' suggestion is a very major one.
 That anyone might resent the idea of making things easier for the new
 or casual user is unfortunate. However, this is a large reason that
 LyX has not taken off far more than it has.

LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs
will be the area where there is the least overlap, and Lyx is needed
for areas which are not for the average user, it is more specialized:

A comment about *tex from Peter Flynn:

 Hendrik Maryns: The TeX language is one of the
 worst-designed and incomprehensible languages ever invented.

Peter Flynn replied:
It was designed by a computer scientist and mathematician for doing
the kind of things computer scientists and mathematicians do, and as
a byproduct it also happens to do some non-math, non-scientific 
typesetting. You should not expect it to be usable by end users: like 
the TeXbook, it was designed for use by 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On 5/24/06, Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs


Who suggested that making Lyx menus more like Word menus would
accomplish such a goal? Rich seemed to be replying to the suggestion
that LyX include a GUI to create .sty and .layout files.

--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
PhD Student
University of Western Australia

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[David Neeley]

Personally, I did not respond to the idea that the menus should be
Word-like--what I was focused on was the idea of having a bit more
ability to create layout adjustments from controls in the menu system.
That, I continue to believe, is a worthwhile goal.

I'll give you a simple example: let us say a lawyer wants to create a
pleadings layout. As it stands, he may look all over the Web for one
already done, or he may begin to dig into the existing methods for
doing so--and thus to climb the learning curve. While the latter may
be more beneficial in the long run, the simple fact is that for many
the time available to master a complex subject is insufficient. At the
same time, LyX would be absolutely ideal for a law office in many
respects, far beyond what Word can offer.

David

On 5/23/06, John McCabe-Dansted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 5/24/06, Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
 toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
 making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
 Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs

Who suggested that making Lyx menus more like Word menus would
accomplish such a goal? Rich seemed to be replying to the suggestion
that LyX include a GUI to create .sty and .layout files.

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Jan Peters]

LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs
will be the area where there is the least overlap, and Lyx is needed
for areas which are not for the average user, it is more specialized:


Just my 2 cents: The LyX toolbars should be not repeats Word's mistakes
but include nice equation editing feature like SWP or Mathtype which  
are currently
hidden in the math panel (which either costs me half my screen or  
has to be
activated every time). Practical math toolbars would really be a  
MAJOR improvement.


How difficult would it be to move the Math Panel into the toolbar?

-Jan

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Stephen Harris]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:

On 5/24/06, Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

LyX developers already try to make the menus easier and
toolbars more available for _all_ users. I don't think Rich resents
making things easier, but the completely ignorant notion that making
Lyx menus more like Word menus would accomplish such a goal. ERTs


Who suggested that making Lyx menus more like Word menus would
accomplish such a goal? Rich seemed to be replying to the suggestion
that LyX include a GUI to create .sty and .layout files.

--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
PhD Student
University of Western Australia



The original poster, Enrique said in part:

 ... or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep a learning
 curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

SH: If you don't put ERTs, which I think qualifies as a
single line of LaTeX code, (not just .layouts) inside
the LyX document in order to implement Latex functionality,
how then would it be accomplished? What alternative is
there but to use the menu with Word friendly user jargon?

Maybe you think the OP meant the average Word user shoudn't
have to deal with any Latex code only inside a layout file,
but that inside a LyX file, typing Ctrl-l and knowing what
to type next *was* a reasonable expectation for an average
Word user. I don't think that interpretation is reasonable.
And if you don't type inside ERT, that only leaves a menu
item to select, or, give up employing a useful functionality.

I didn't criticize improving .layouts in some fashion which
is why I omitted that idea from my quote. I think Enrique's
post covers more ground than just layouts. I only quoted:

 Enrique: or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep
 a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.

This quote was contrived to characterize Rich as unfortunately
unsympathetic to the needs of a causal user which is partially
the cause of LyX not having more users.

David: Rich, I read nothing in Mr. Gonzalez' suggestion that
would require that you or anyone else come down to that level.

I read something in the OP's suggestion because the OP didn't
say just layouts. And I can't see how using Latex code in a
layout is too steep of a learning curve but using Latex code
in an ERT is an acceptable roll your own learning curve.
Looking at how incredibly difficult it is to create a .layout

http://wiki.lyx.org/Layouts/CreatingLayouts

For using their LaTeX-class, you'll have to write your own LyX-layout. 
(It shouldn't be that difficult...)


Find the basis class for your new class. Lets assume, the LaTeX class 
amcsiggraph.cls is a descendant of article.cls, then the lyx layout to 
use is article.layout. Save the following to a file acmsiggraph.layout 
in your layouts directory (~/.lyx/layouts/ on UNIX):



#% Do not delete the line below; configure depends on this
#  \DeclareLaTeXClass[acmsiggraph]{ACM SigGraph}

# Read the definitions from article.layout
Input article.layout


ACM SigGraph is the text you will see in the 
LayoutDocumentDocument-Class drop-down list.

(After EditReconfigure and a restart of lyx.)

That is all I have to say on this matter,
Stephen

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Micha Feigin]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:13:51 -0500
David Neeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Rich,
 
 I read nothing in Mr. Gonzalez' suggestion that would require that you
 or anyone else come down to that level. Adding the ability to create
 a layout from the LyX GUI does not mean that you would lose any
 ability for you to roll your own. It might, though, encourage new
 users to get going more quickly--and some of them will be interested
 enough to learn how to dig deeper and get the additional power that
 comes from mastering the nuts and bolts.
 

It will probably be much simpler to write a standalone tool/wizard for creating
layout files. I am not sure how cleanly such a tool would integrate with the
lyx interface.

 I am by no means a completely clueless newby--yet I am new to LyX
 and to LaTeX. Thus, I am in the earlier parts of the learning curve. I
 believe that some ability to more easily operate from the LyX
 interface to create or modify layouts would be a boon to faster
 productivity.
 
 For example, I am now working on a document that should be a great
 help in getting my next job. I am doing it in LyX simply to have
 something that will cause me to continue to dig in and expand my
 familiarity that much faster. However, dealing with little things that
 should be easy to find is taking far longer than writing the document
 itself. I can see that as I become more familiar with things, my
 writing time should decline greatly, even compared to all the word
 processors I am familiar with (which includes most of the ones you
 have heard of over the past twenty years or so--part of my consulting
 work over the years has included evaluation of software and hardware
 tools for businesses and organizations of all sorts).
 
 My work has led me to believe that the word processing paradigm is
 wrong for those actually interested in productivity with a
 high-quality end result. When I have done technical writing
 assignments, I have learned firsthand how many people screw up their
 documents by not learning to use styles intelligently--leading to
 major problems in doing version upgrades of documentation. In my view,
 therefore, the LyX approach would enforce a more sensible practice,
 making future revisions that much easier to deal with. That is, in
 fact, why I began this process.
 
 That said, there are some fairly obvious things that could make life
 easier for everyone--and Mr.Gonzalez' suggestion is a very major one.
 That anyone might resent the idea of making things easier for the new
 or casual user is unfortunate. However, this is a large reason that
 LyX has not taken off far more than it has.
 
 David
 
 On 5/23/06, Rich Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Tue, 23 May 2006, Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto wrote:
 
   I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but
   writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too steep
   a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.
 
 Then, perhaps, the average Word user should stick to that and not make
  any attempts to learn LaTeX, or even LyX. For those with learning
  disabilities, stick to what's available in shrink-wrapped packages for the
  Microsoft environment. Don't suggest that the rest of us come down to that
  level.
 
  Rich
  
  +++
  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
 

Re: A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

[Enrique S Gonzalez Di Totto]

Greetings,

 As a new user, to me clearly the most important feature missing from 
LyX is the ability to create new document classes with custom 
enviroments using the LyX GUI.


 I know adding such a feature must be quite a large undertaking, but 
writing .layout files or even one single line of LaTeX code is too 
steep a learning curve for the average Word user to ever climb.


 -- Enrique
 The stupider your target user, the larger your potential market.

 P.D. Thanks for the tips on the accent problem. Switching to 1.4.1 
did solve it. It seems your psychic powers are in no need of any 
upgrade whatsoever. ;)



Original message:
A debate topic: What can LyX still learn from scientific workplace?

Jan Peters
Sun, 21 May 2006 01:08:35 -0700
I have attempted to outline what LyX can still learn from scientific 
workplace and vice versa. Its not the world but it is the part which 
makes the users


base change from enthusiasts to commoners. Please check out

http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyxVersusScientificWorkplace
http://www.jan-peters.net/Computer/LyxVsSwp

Feel free to drop me a line - I mainly want to start people to start 
thinking what LyX needs to become commonplace ... and completely 
replace Scientific


Workplace on my desk and Word on my supervisors desk.

Best wishes,
-Jan

===

Jan Peters, Graduate Research Assistant, Dipl.Inf., Dipl.Ing., M.Sc. (CS,ME)

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: www.jan-peters.net
===