Text in an isosceles triangle?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iChat, one man's meat ...
Next: Trouble loading page
From: Jochem Huhmann on 14 Dec 2009 08:32 real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes: > LaTeX is ideal for doing letters - nothing better, if you've prepared > your own local letter class file so you don't have to type in your own > name and address etc. Which of course can be done as well with a Pages template -- and you can also use the Addressbook to drop in things. The main reason I'm still using LaTeX for that is the fact that I'm too lazy to recreate my custom layout in Pages. >> That being said, for more ad-hoc things I tend to use Pages more and more. >> It may suck as a word processor but it's a great DTP app for dummies. >> And positively beautiful. Returning to fruit-salad syntax-highlighted >> LaTeX source makes me cringe sometimes now. There! I said it! > > Yeah, but you'll get better looking output from LaTeX - although for > ad-hoc layouts, LaTeX is lousy: if you can't get the layout from one of > the standard packages/classes, you need a different format (or maybe a > different typesetter entirely) - such as ConTeXt, so I'm told. Which still is a nightmare for things you want to use only once. And if this involves fancy images and backgrounds and shapes you'd be silly to use anything TeX-based for that. > I've tried to learn how to use Pages and failed to manage to work out > how to use it just to produce a plain page of ordinary text, such as I > can knock out with MacWrite II very easily. Pages does indeed suck as a > WP and it's bloody hard to learn how to use to do anything. For that just use an empty WP template and start typing. No, where Pages starts to suck is with complex word processing, because it's rather limited here and can also get really slow (I haven't tried with recent versions though, it certainly has gotten better and faster). > My LaTeX output looks good because the typography's done for me by LaTeX > - and who cares what the artistic aesthetic appeal of the source text > might appear to be? When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very much. Editing complex tables is such a case. Dropping in, placing, scaling and rotating images is another. But then generating tables (or generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere (databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages. As always the trick is using the right tool for the job at hand. And neither Pages nor LaTeX is the right tool for *everything*. > Rowland. > (who's got very little time for most modern software, which is mostly a > lot less usable than what he's used to) Things you're used to are always more usable, yes. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Woody on 14 Dec 2009 09:26 Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes: > > My LaTeX output looks good because the typography's done for me by LaTeX > > - and who cares what the artistic aesthetic appeal of the source text > > might appear to be? > > When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very > much. Editing complex tables is such a case. Dropping in, placing, > scaling and rotating images is another. But then generating tables (or > generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere > (databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages And very simple in Microsoft Word. In theory should be easy in something like open office, but I have never tried -- Woody
From: Elliott Roper on 14 Dec 2009 09:32 In article <1japtd5.rklqsz1gzeuomN%hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid>, Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid> wrote: > Reconstruction. In my trials, after getting the freehand shape selected > with some difficulty which I'd noticed but not fathomed, I'd always > double-clicked in the body, and therefore I'd always simply deselected > the freehand shape instead of initiating text entry. > > Between us, QED! One slight refinement. You can make your custom shape clickable anywhere by giving it fill. That's the Mac way. Make things discoverable without giving you a clue, except it might work as you want in another application and why not try it here? I'm in two minds about whether that is a good thing. Once you discover it, you don't forget it, but you can go your whole life thinking Word is better. (well, OK *that* is a wild exaggeration) -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Graham J on 14 Dec 2009 11:36 "Elliott Roper" <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote in message news:141220091432143320%nospam(a)yrl.co.uk... > In article <1japtd5.rklqsz1gzeuomN%hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid>, > Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid> wrote: > >> Reconstruction. In my trials, after getting the freehand shape selected >> with some difficulty which I'd noticed but not fathomed, I'd always >> double-clicked in the body, and therefore I'd always simply deselected >> the freehand shape instead of initiating text entry. >> >> Between us, QED! > > One slight refinement. You can make your custom shape clickable > anywhere by giving it fill. > > That's the Mac way. Make things discoverable without giving you a clue, > except it might work as you want in another application and why not try > it here? > > I'm in two minds about whether that is a good thing. Once you discover > it, you don't forget it, but you can go your whole life thinking Word > is better. (well, OK *that* is a wild exaggeration) From using other graphics programs the way I would select an irregular shape is to click well outside it and drag the mouse so it creates a selection rectangle completely encompassing the shape. This works with Visio, and selects the items completely enclosed - omitting those which are only partly enclosed. I find it quite handy ... -- Graham J
From: Elliott Roper on 14 Dec 2009 11:56
In article <4b26697c$0$2486$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk>, Graham J <graham(a)nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote: <snip> > From using other graphics programs the way I would select an irregular shape > is to click well outside it and drag the mouse so it creates a selection > rectangle completely encompassing the shape. This works with Visio, and > selects the items completely enclosed - omitting those which are only partly > enclosed. I find it quite handy ... Yep. Good point. That is the Microsoft way. The Cocoa way is to select all of any object encroached by your selection rectangle, however partially it does so. Both are equally valid, although the latter requires less mousing in the example we have been talking about. Either way, it beats the pants off farting about with fills. Thanks! -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 |