| |||||||||||
"and above all continuity with what they are used to""and above all continuity with what they are used to"Posted Aug 20, 2006 7:57 UTC (Sun) by odie (guest, #738)In reply to: "and above all continuity with what they are used to" by Arker Parent article: Free software's secret weapon: FOOGL (Linux Journal)
I do some work at a company digitizing textbooks, and they are DOS-based. Most of the work is done with a heavily customized MultiEdit and tonnes of intertwined BAT files. There is no alternative text editor that is so much better that it would motivate porting all the scripts and macros, so there is no reason to switch from DOS.
The largest competitor are using MS Word instead, and from what I hear, their workflow is much more manual and ineffective. Given the nature of the task, I would imagine the main reason they are using Word is that it is newer and more buzz-word compliant.
People will happily go from Windows Last Year Edition to Windows Future Edition regardless of the UI changes, even if their day-to-day tasks are slightly more cumbersome in the new system. Since everything that differs does so because the old system was - well - old, any complaints can be shrugged off as techno-conservatism and refusal to get with the times. Any differences between an old product and a new one are clearly improvements to the new.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||