From: tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye)
To: Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com>
Cc: Org-mode mailing list <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:36:47 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2egrmdlv4.fsf@tsdye.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m2h9wi6nas.fsf@gmail.com> (Ken Mankoff's message of "Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:47:39 -0500")
,----------------------------------------------------------------------
| "One may also argue that given a well-designed LaTeX document class
| file, document development speed and text and formatting accuracy are
| significantly improved."
`----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, the LaTeX users didn't have the benefit of a document
class. Hard to take a "study" like this seriously.
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| "preventing researchers from producing documents in LaTeX would save
| time and money to maximize the benefit of research and development for
| both the research team and the public"
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All you have to lose is your freedom.
All the best,
Tom
Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com> writes:
> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
>
> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used
> in Academic Research and Development
>
> Summary: Word users are more efficient and have less errors than even
> experienced LaTeX users.
>
> Someone here should repeat experiment and add Org into the mix, perhaps
> Org -> ODT and/or Org -> LaTeX and see if it helps or hurts. I assume
> Org would trump LaTeX, but would Org -> ODT or Org -> X -> DOCX (via
> pandoc) beat straight Word?
>
> -k.
>
>
>
--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-26 23:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-26 22:47 Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word Ken Mankoff
2014-12-26 23:36 ` Thomas S. Dye [this message]
2014-12-27 2:21 ` briangpowell .
2014-12-27 14:36 ` Eric S Fraga
2014-12-27 3:26 ` Christopher W. Ryan
2014-12-28 22:45 ` Bob Newell
2014-12-27 4:27 ` Nick Dokos
2014-12-27 9:06 ` Peter Neilson
2014-12-27 14:38 ` Eric S Fraga
2014-12-27 9:48 ` Achim Gratz
2014-12-27 10:05 ` Paul Rudin
2014-12-27 10:36 ` M
2014-12-27 11:36 ` Fabrice Popineau
2014-12-28 22:43 ` Pascal Fleury
2014-12-31 18:19 ` Paul Rudin
2014-12-27 13:37 ` Daniele Pizzolli
2014-12-28 21:40 ` Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word ---LOOK AT THE DATA! Christophe Pouzat
2014-12-29 19:47 ` Thomas S. Dye
2014-12-31 16:59 ` Colin Baxter
2015-01-04 20:38 ` Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word John Kitchin
2015-01-04 21:15 ` Andreas Leha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m2egrmdlv4.fsf@tsdye.com \
--to=tsd@tsdye.com \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=mankoff@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).