This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz by Michael Cote. Original Post: MS-Word in the Software Process, Collaborative Authorship Feed Title: Cote's Weblog: Coding, Austin, etc. Feed URL: https://cote.io/feed/ Feed Description: Using Java to get to the ideal state. Latest Java Buzz Posts Latest Java Buzz Posts by Michael Cote Latest Posts From Cote's Weblog: Coding, Austin, etc.

In thinking of what I'll be working on today, the nasty topic of MS-Word popped up. There's one document that about 3 people are working on: we have to coordinate edits because CVS, of course, can't merge Word.

Perhaps there's some merge functionality in Word (but, how good is it?)...but, I wonder what would be a better way of editing documents in the software process. It seems that what you want are the abilities to:

1. Generating auto numbered headings.
2. Enforce consistent formatting, style, and layout.
3. Ability to cross-reference other sections and not have to update those cross references.
4. Integrate pictures with text.

Really, there are innumerable ways to do these things, but for some reason Word ends up being the contender.

In my ideal world, there'd be a little management of expectations and most of the above criteria would be removed in favor of,

1. Editable anywhere by anything. There's also the subtle corollary to this that you'll be able to load up plain text long into the future: in the year 2020, when Word 2018 is being used, old Word 97 files may not load too well.
2. Mergable by CVS.
3. Works well with diff.
4. Authors don't have to spend time futzing with formatting a style, spending that time (and there's and lot of time spent on WYSIWYG-crap, trust me) on the actual content instead.

Then, when the whole thing needed to be made pretty, you'd just shoot it off into The Pretty Pipe.

In the tech-world, however, I think there's a certain level of documentation (once it goes cross department, I'd guess) where plain text becomes unacceptable: it's gotta be Word. I'm not sure if this is more functional than aesthetic, and one could get into endless jaw-flapping trying to figure it out: instead, as always, it'd be nice to know why.

Possible reasons:

• Word is all that's available to everyone: all the licenses are paid for, people know how to use it, etc.
• Stakeholders who call the shots don't care about my issues. (This is always a safe bet ;>)
• Word, despite it's merge/diff problems, is actually more net-productive. For whatever reasons, when you take into account everyone's involvement (authors and readers), Word has a higher pay-off. Which, of course, just begs the question...

I'm well aware of many alternatives, e.g., LaTeX, simple HTML, customized XML, etc.; at my old stomping ground we were steeped in 'em, and this topic was a reoccuring continous debate as new people came aboard and got, to them, the nasty taste of a Word-less process in their mouths.

So, i'm not interested in technical solutions -- ways to accomplish easier editing -- but social solutions that would make people actually want those "better" ways, understand why they'd want them, and help champion their use.