The Octopus

That Buck Rogers Stuff

Last week, I had an epiphany of sorts.  I was working on creating a document at work.  To get to the finished product, I had to refer to and poach from several other documents.  I had to edit several sections, and to bounce back and forth between sections to ensure that I was maintaining consistency of subject matter and voice.  I needed to include several images, but I wasn’t sure until near completion exactly what order I wanted to use them.  The beginning of the document needed a chunk of boilerplate text modified to fit current needs.  Finally, there was some new text that needed to be created, and linked to existing documents in a meaningful way.

This is in most respects a typical work project for me, and for any technical writer.  And Microsoft Word is uniquely unsuited for this sort of work.  As is every other word processing application.  What I am doing is not processing words.  I am processing ideas, or at least concepts.  Certainly, at a low level, there is a lot of word processing going on, but it is not the primary activity.  I could just as easily use notepad for the word processing. 

My frustration with the tools at hand led me to think.  (Some of these ideas go back a ways, but the totality of the thing hit me like a bat to the head.) One can imagine a word processing spectrum running from notepad to pagemaker.  At the one end, you find a rudimentary text entry application with minimal editing functionality.  It exists merely to accept words, fiddle with them in a limited way and save them to a file.  At the other end are desktop publishing applications such as Adobe Pagemaker.  Programs such as this are awkward at best for purposes of creating text, but have truly remarkable abilities to format, arrange and prettify already extant text.  They serve to prepare text for publishing. 

Other programs exist on or near the spectrum between these two endpoints.  UNIX text editors like vi and emacs take the notepad concept and take it to its logical conclusion.  Their purpose is not merely text entry, but to control text files.  Their search and editing capabilities are very powerful, but only for manipulating pure text – not for any sort of formatting.  However, they have been specialized for use as coding tools.  Word and other high-end word processors improve upon the text manipulation tools of notepad, but only slightly.  What they add is a significant portion of the formatting powers of the desktop publishing software in an easy to use form.  You can see what a letter will look like in Word, and print it.  Word offers nifty templates for letters and other forms of business correspondence.  It is designed for use by secretaries, though it has been adopted by nearly everyone else.

All of these applications either manipulate text, or its appearance, or some combination of the two.  This is all very useful, but does not address the problems involved in creating any piece of writing larger than a letter or memo.  The process of authoring is larger than the either the manipulation of text, or its appearance.  When an author, screenwriter, technical editor, journalist, pundit or anyone writing anything more involved than a memo begins to write, they very rarely dive in and create a complete piece of work in one sitting.  Often there is research.  Notes about characters.  References and citations.  Background notes, or drafts. 

All of this either exists in one large and unwieldy word doc; or in many, many collectively unwieldy smaller docs.  In the former case, all the information is crammed together, and the larger the doc, the more complicated the task of quickly locating the desired information.  Scrolling through tens or hundreds of pages of notes to find one thing is time consuming.  The search capabilities of word are entirely inadequate to the task.  If instead the author has broken his information into many smaller docs, the ease of use depends on how cleverly he has named and organized the documents.  Any failure of attention may lead to crucial information being in a misleadingly named doc, or filed in the wrong place, or put in the wrong doc.  This leads to exceedingly tedious opening and closing of word docs to find that little tidbit.

Neither situation is conducive to effective research or writing.  Microsoft OneNote and a couple writing tools address some of these needs.  But while OneNote can organize notes and information reasonably well, it does not make it easy to write.  Software like the Writer’s Dreamkit help you keep track of certain information like characters and timelines, but are still poor interfaces for writing.  And the help they provide in organization are strictly limited to specific types of writing.

What is needed is authoring software.  Software that allows easy and intuitive organization of information as it is entered and easy and intuitive access to that information during the writing process.  Software that provides a comfortable and powerful but not unwieldy text-entering interface.  Software that allows searching your information and the web right from the text, with minimal interruption in the flow of writing.  Software that does what you want but doesn’t get in the way.  Software that I’d call the Octopus.  Imagine a clever, friendly octopus logo.

This software would not provide full formatting and desktop publishing functionality.  But it would be much more than a mere text entry device. 


Posted by on 09/13/05 at 05:50 PM in That Buck Rogers Stuff
  1. You’re giving me flashbacks to last summer, or perhaps it was the summer before, which was to have heralded a new operating interface with some utterly implausible capabilities, such as the ones you mention.  I was intrigued enough to sign up for notification of its eventual availability.

    I’m glad I didn’t hold my breath - I guess they imploded before re-entry.  And I’m effed if, at this late post-mortem date, I can even remember the name of the danged thing.

    You’re right - the UI would have to be slicker than snot. In fact, it might require osmotic input. Because unless I miss my guess, the context switches required to do what you describe, and what us meat-based computing devices can do as a matter of course, would be ghastly hard to design, let alone to implement.

    Rather like my dream concept of the last several decades, a computer that, instead of doing what I told it to do, does what I meant.

    All that said, I’ll read your spec again later, perhaps with a bourbon on the rocks, and see if I can be a bit less realistic.

    Posted by Patton  on  09/13  at  07:35 PM

Navigation

Next entry: A film not by Ken Burns

Previous entry: More T-shirt ideas

The Ministry of Minor Perfidy