Source Browser ?

1% language=us runpath=texruns:manuals/musings
2
3\startcomponent musings-perfection
4
5\environment musings-style
6
7\startchapter[title={Do we need perfection ?}]
8
9\startsection[title={Introduction}]
10
11It doesn't take much imagination to think of a future were jobs become less
12interesting. Automation and especially machine learning will dominate more and
13more. At least in the Netherlands there is a tendency to talk in terms of jobs
14that assume \quotation {highly educated} folk, but often that is just a way to
15boost one's self esteem, of worse, to suggest that a job is very interesting. In
16this perspective the term {\em bs job} comes up. I like working with computers
17but I'm not sure if I'd choose to work with them when I were young: the
18perspective often for instance {\em scrumming through the workload} doesn't
19really attract me. Add to that the fact that todays employer tomorrow has a
20different owner and changed objectives and it becomes even less attractive.
21
22I often get the impression that the more constructive jobs are also the more
23interesting ones but alas they are not that advocated (or popular). On the
24Internet you can find plenty videos of the amazing things that humans can do.
25Incredible mechanical solutions: buildings, ships, planes, gears, waterworks,
26chips, and when you go a bit back in time you'll notice that often what we
27consider advanced today was inspired by the past (hint: search for lunar module
28computer and colossus if you're interested in the origins of computing as we know
29it today).
30
31When you read about old school typography it is clear that we are dealing with a
32craft. At some point extensive manual labor got assistance from tools: chisels,
33lead letter forms, the printing press, semi|-|automated mechanical devices like
34Monotype and Linotype but it was still craftmanship that was in demand. These
35tools made it possible to scale up.
36
37When computers came around the landscape changed. The things that could not be
38automated still demanded manual intervention but soon (at least that is what we
39noticed) the demands simply changed. When the computer cannot hyphenate well,
40just forget about it and there's always an argument to come up with. And yes,
41much of today's typesetting is not really new but comes from the (near) past. The
42Monotype 4|-|line system for math looks quite interesting and advanced. If you
43think that our emoji are hip and modern, just look at what the Aztec did.
44
45The \TEX\ system has always been a bit different because it demands some manual
46work to get things right. Of course one can use some precooked style but then
47we're not talking craftmanship. The focus is then on the content and if it looks
48kind of right all is good. It either gets retypeset \quotation {far far away} or
49when it is just pushed on the web no one bothers (it has best fit on a phone).
50
51It is really puzzling to see how little attention is paid to digitizing documents
52It is not too hard to find 150 dpi scans where the pages were scanned in an angle
53of relatively recent documents \typ
54{https://www.tug.org/docs/liang/liang-thesis.pdf}. When I finally decided to buy
55the original \CCODE\ book, a wondered why I had to pay some 60 dollar for what
56looks like either a bad scan or some low quality digital print and after a first
57glance I decided that I'll probably throw it in the paper bin some day soon
58because I can as well use some bad scan from Internet. One of my first buys with
59respect to typesetting was \quotation {Digital Typography: An Introduction to
60Type and Composition for Computer System Design} by Richard Rubinstein. That one
61was done on a Mac with MSWord in 1988 and looks better than the average document
62done by \TEX\ that students get from their teachers who were (probably) educated
63around that time. It's more about paying attention than about the tools.
64
65The idea behind \CONTEXT\ macro package is (and will be) that users themselves
66have some influence on what it does. There is no way that it can compete in the
67\TEX\ domain with precooked styles simply because the standard has been set very
68early to \LATEX\ (and \AMS\ math) and most marketing in the community targets to
69such usage. One|-|time and one|-|shot users, of whom I bet some {\em have to} use
70\TEX, but would gladly use something else, are not the audience for \CONTEXT. So
71that brings us to questions like \quotation {What are the objectives of a macro
72package like \CONTEXT ?}, \quotation {Do we need to provide perfect solutions.},
73\quotation {What do users want?}. Being forced to use (a) \TEX\ (macro package)
74is not much different from being forced to use an operating system, editor or
75programming language. In the end there has to be a \quote {click} and when it's
76there long term happy usage will often also lead to mastery and satisfaction.
77
78Another set of questions relate to how eager we should be to keep up with all
79demands. Do we really need to listen to publishers, especially when there is no
80real indication of interest in typesetting but more in growth, profit, periodical
81selling oneself. Demands change and standards come and go. A good example of a
82currently popular demand is tagging documents, but when you look at that from
83that with \TEX\ glasses on it is kind of weird. A \TEX\ based system can pretty
84well render any variant of a document and target specific needs: paper, screen,
85dedicated devices, different fonts, colors etc.\ is all pretty trivial. If a
86house is not well accessible you adapt it. If clothing doesn't fit, you shop for
87a different make. If you have an allergy you get different food. When it comes to
88documents we can distribute variants and even the source. Not doing that when
89there is demand is just laziness, unwillingness or going cheap. So, should we
90adapt, or should we be more creative with designs and target alternative (and
91multiple) media? If we don't, at least we should come up with good reasons.
92
93To go back to what I started with: how do we keep working with documents, coming
94up with solutions, playing with layout, interesting? It might as well be that in
95the future when the ratio employment versus free time also gives more room for
96figuring things out. The interaction between coming with the content and somehow
97present it using tools like \CONTEXT\ can have a positive result on the final
98product. Isn't is a nice challenge to serve a broad audience with well tuned
99documents?
100
101My impression is that the more extensive \CONTEXT\ users have enough freedom to
102use a system like that. They are probably not working at large companies or in
103large organizations that impress tools and methods. So a valid question is: how
104does a system have to look like in order to draw those users into the game and
105how does it keep them in a position that they can keep using it. We don't need
106perfect, all automated, human replacement tools, do we? We're more talking
107\quote {toolkit}, aren't we?
108
109I'd like users to come up with additional sections here. How do they use
110\CONTEXT ? What do they expect from a system like that? How should it evolve?
111Where should it stop? What challenges should it leave to the user? What can go
112and what (kind of control) should be added?
113
114\stopsection
115
116\startsection[title={Your turn}]
117
118{\em user contributions}
119
120\stopsection
121
122\stopchapter
123
124\stopcomponent
125