Timeline for Researchers nowadays communicate via screens, not papers. LaTeX is not the right tool to write for screens. Why is it still the go-to for writing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 2 at 11:52 | history | suggested | Michael Mior | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor corrections
|
| Mar 2 at 9:39 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 2 at 11:52 | |||||
| Mar 1 at 22:06 | comment | added | Ooker | @AzorAhai-him- yes, I should have been more specific on the scope | |
| Mar 1 at 18:58 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | @Ooker But they are, you said "researchers" ... not "researchers who use LaTeX." | |
| Mar 1 at 18:28 | comment | added | Ooker | @AzorAhai-him- I know. They are not in my scope | |
| Mar 1 at 4:51 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | @Ooker Yet, most people do just fine with Word. | |
| Mar 1 at 4:19 | comment | added | Ooker | @AzorAhai-him- I mean people who has complex documents that using Word is inefficient has to pick a programming language to learn | |
| Feb 29 at 14:50 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | @Ooker I'm sorry, I don't understand either of your sentences. | |
| Feb 29 at 13:42 | comment | added | Richard Erickson | @Ooker writing things like theses, dissertations, books, and the like can be hard with Word. Historically, it would crash with large files. Depending upon the equations and cross referencing, Word also does not work well, although Word now includes LaTeX equations. Lastly, the legal field often still uses Word Perfect (see this review of the software pcmag.com/reviews/corel-wordperfect-office). The review also lists cause where the author uses Word Perfect rather than Word. | |
| Feb 29 at 4:15 | comment | added | Ooker | @AzorAhai-him- who has complex documents that using Word is inefficient? And they do this for the job of writing them? | |
| Feb 28 at 23:05 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | "and they have to pick a programming language to learn" Who does, for what? | |
| Feb 28 at 19:51 | comment | added | Richard Erickson | Yes. Look at the home page: Quarto does both interactive websites as well as print formats quarto.org one quote notes Publish collections of documents as a blog or full website. Create books and manuscripts in both print formats (PDF and MS Word) and online formats (HTML and ePub). Another quotes notes Engage readers by adding interactive data exploration to your documents using Jupyter Widgets, htmlwidgets for R, Observable JS, and Shiny. | |
| Feb 28 at 19:33 | comment | added | Ooker | So is it valid to put Quarto in the same basket with webpage? As for the latter, I don't think that matters, because I think the answer is both: popular among academics and general population. And even there is a set of people that it's not popular, then the popular point is not as important as the points about interactive and intended for screens | |
| Feb 28 at 19:24 | comment | added | Richard Erickson | Also, I would challenge this view "then why not choosing a more popular, more interactive, and intended for screens?". Popular among who? academics or the general population? | |
| Feb 28 at 19:23 | comment | added | Richard Erickson | Quarto is a Markdown-based language that can go to HTML or PDF simply by changing one line of code for most files. Also, Quarto can use Jupyter Notebooks as input files. | |
| Feb 28 at 19:04 | comment | added | Ooker | I understand why people prefers a low learning curve, WYSIWYG program like Word. But when the project is complex and they have to pick a programming language to learn, then assuming the effort to learn is the same, then why not choosing a more popular, more interactive, and intended for screens? I haven't looked closely at Quarto, but at the face of it I would put it in the same basket with webpage. Jupyter is the same: interactive and intended for screens, not papers. (I agree using "webpage" limits my options) | |
| Feb 28 at 14:03 | history | answered | Richard Erickson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |