> Van: Christophe Grandsire
>
> > Because writers would not have to bother with laarning LateX. They can
write
> > in Word or whatever editor they already know, and save as HTML or RTF.
The
> > writer should not be bothered with selecting a certain format, since
that is
> > the editor's job.
>
> That's where the problem lies. Where are you gonna find a conlanger who
has
> enough spare time and interest to do this full job? (I know that by
experience)
> Even I cannot do that unless you have a spell to magically double the
number of
> hours in a day. On the other hand, my solution solves the problem by
giving to
> *everyone* a little of this job, rather than to one or a few people the
whole
> job. I think in the case of this list it's only fair.
>
> > If I would have to learn LateX, however easy it may be, I
> > simply wouldn't bother sending in stuff.
>
> Well, if you're lazy, I can do nothing for you. Why should you
> get everything without doing some effort?
The point is not whether I am lazy or not, the point is that you want to
make a journal. You have to deal with the situation as it is, whether you
like or agree with it or not. I agree it would be more fair if everybody
shared a little of the work load, but that is just not going to happen. I am
not lazy, and I would like a conlang magazine, but I just do not have time
to also learn LateX in the process, install proper programms and stuff. I
rather work on my conlangs instead or on any of my other gazillion jobs and
hobbies. And you know just how lazy I am, Christophe :-)
Btw, the people who are sending in stuff are already doing some work, namely
writing down the stuff they send in. Asking them to learn and install a new
editor and work in a certian fixed format means that you create a large
barrier for people to start participating. I can't say whether that is fair
or not, just that I think it might prevent success.
> > No, it is not. Most of my students have learnt the computer by graphic
> > interface. They are completely unfamiliar with the idea of text-based
> > editing. They find tags etc. used for formatting counter-intuitive,
> > not
> > because they are, but because they are not used to it.
> > I have taught informal website-making classes, and when I did an
> > introduction of basic HTML layout, my students started groaning and
> > complaining... until out comes Dreamweaver, Frontpage or some other
> > WYSIWYG editor, and happy smiles appeared on their faces again: this was
> > something they could work with, which was familar to them.
>
> So what? It reminds me of the time I was learning to count by head. Most
other
> pupils were complaining that with the calculators you didn't need that
anymore.
> Except that I've seen now those people having problems in a supermarket
because
> they were unable to know how much worth they had in their car (and that
before
> the change to the Euro :)) ). You're not helping them by leaving them with
> their laziness.
This has absolutely nothing to do with laziness whatsoever. It has to do
with style. They are accustomed to a different working environment and
that's what makes it hard for them, just as it is seemingly hard for you te
create decent word documents that convert well. What you are almost doing is
telling everybody else to work in a style that fits you, so that you do not
have to change yours. Instead of asking others to learn LateX, you cuold
also try to learn how to convert Word documents quickly and correctly,
something which is in my experience not that hard to do either.
> Well, for WYSIWYG fans, LyX is available for Windows. Except that
> to install it you need to know as much about computers as a top hacker!
:)) You
> just can't work only with graphical interfaces all your life, or you're
> doomed to have to ask for help at every little problem that happens on
your
> computer (especially if it has Windows).
And neither can you live by the command line all your life, assuming that
because your HTML is technically correct, it is supposed to look good on
browsers :-)
> Well, what I see is that the difference between a magazine and a journal
is
> that in the magazine the staff does all the work. In my idea of a journal,
all
> those things can be put in. It's just that comes in what people put in. So
if
> someone makes a poll, it will be put in the journal. If someone writes an
> interview, it will be put in too. The thing is that I leave
> people decide the contents. I'll take care only of the layout. And because
things
> like Publisher are much too expensive, this layout will stay simple (I
don't like fancy
> layouts anyway, they prevent rather than enhance reading).
Well, the whole purpose of a layout should be to make the information more
accessible. Anything other than that is distractice and thus
"overredundant".
> If people want a rubrique to appear at each issue, they just have to make
sure
> that they send it to me on time before each issue. I'll take care of the
rest. And
> I can accept RTF, LaTeX, and maybe HTML (as soon as I find a converter),
> nothing fancier.
> Happy?
I was never unhappy. I am merely trying to help you succeed in your attempt
by pointing out where things could go wrong. In my opinion, the week point
in all such efforts is that the initiators often think they are doing the
world a favor with their initiative. But it is your initiative, so you are
the only one who can succeed or fail. However good your actual idea, if
people find it too much of a hassle, they will not be interested and nothing
will come of it. I don't want to seem a doom-monger, but it is you who must
make it work, not some bunch of anonymous people out there on the list...
> > That might be, but I joint a long time after creation, when the list
had,
> > imho, become something different. I believe, as I wrote in an e-mail a
short
> > while back, that the posts on this list should be more concise and more
to
> > the point. How can I ever critique and entire language just like that?
>
> Who said you have to critique?
Well, that's why the person left the list: because no one commented on his
language post. So he obvsiouly expected some form of comment (and probably
more than just " Oh, how nice a language is that!").
> Yep, I agreed at that time (and still do). But that's about the
> list, not about a paper thing that would be released every three months.
Well, I think your setup would work, but I believe the audience would remain
rather limited. But let that not discourage you, because if that's what you
want, then that's what you should do.
> As I said in another
> post: *any* kind of article is welcome. But I don't want to have to decide
of
> the contents, because I just don't have time for it, and I doubt we can
make a
> board that would do that. We're just too busy and all this stays on our
free
> time! So if you want interviews to appear in this journal, write them
> yourself, go and find the people and interview them (you can even do that
by email!).
But what then is the added value as opposed to this list?
> That's the main difference between our proposals: my proposal is simpler
to do, and thus
> doable.
But is also requires a lot of spontaneity and initiative from the general
public, which is the weak point imo.
> Yours implies that a few people just stop having free time at all!
Well, that's a little overdone. I just believe that for any plan to succeed,
there should be at least a few people who actively promote it and work on
it. I know very few plans that have succeeded through the minimum input of
vary many people, because of the lack of coordination and sense of
responsibility.
> If we want such a big thing to work out, everyone has to make an effort.
It's just fair.
Ha, but the world isn't fair. Most people rather consume than contribute.
Writing an article is already a lot of work.
> > I don't think one or the other is better, merely that they both have a
> > different scope and serve a different audience.
>
> No, it's just that you misunderstood my point. You want broad range
articles
> readable by anyone?
Not necessarrily, those were merely example of what to put in a mag.
> Write them then! I'll be happy to put them in the journal.
Well, if I wrote something about that, I would just post it to this list.
What's the added value of the magazine, if it is merely a compilation of
stuff we already do on the list.
> But don't ask me to come up with a thing looking like "Newsweek",
> I just don't have the time or the material to arrange that.
I never asked for anything like that.
> While I can perfectly handle my own proposal, and have enough experience
to not be too
> pretentious when I say that :)) .
Oh, I am sure you can handle it, but I am not so sure whether you will have
much too handle at all. I just don't believe that people will spontaneously
start sending in articles all by themselves while they can post them to the
list without bothering with format or style. Most people here don't even
find the time or courage to put their own websites up.
> > And don't tell me that your
> > journal fits the audience on the list better without any form of
> > proof,
> > because then, I'll just shout the very same thing back at you :-)
> >
>
> Well, at least I already got the answer of two people ready to
> help me :)) . It means that at least my proposal interests some people.
Well, that's a good sign then!.
> I think it's again one of those cases of "violent agreement" :))
> . We basically want the same thing, except that I leave to everyone
(including
> myself, but only for my articles) the job of making the contents. That's
IMO
> the main thing that differentiate a magazine from a journal (at least to
my
> understanding of those words). And my experience tells me that it works,
even with
> people that> are not very positive with it at first :)) .
Well, the main difference is that I think that the one making the journal
should actively seek content (not write it yourself, but urge people to
submit). I fear that if you just leave it up to individual people's
initiative, that it will be over soon. It's the editor whose magazine it is,
most other people will like it if it is there, and don't miss it if it is
not.
Maarten