20210107 ADVOCATING FOR PLAINTEXT
=================================
I have been advocating for plaintext for a number of years now.
Why? Well, there are a number of reasons. The following is not an
exhaustive list.
A. I have files that I cannot open because I no longer
have access to the proprietary software that I used to make them.
If I fossicked around, I probably could find a conversion program.
But, why should I have to do that? Similarly, there have been many
instances where I've passed on a document to someone else and they
have been unable to open it. In this case, the software is still
generallly available. However, my confrere did not have convenient
access. Of course, this would happen at the most inopportune
times.
B. Starting up word processing software can be a pain.
Learning how to use all the relevant and not so relevant functions
can take more time than I have to invest in many cases. And, time
spent making the document look presentable can be lost because of
some unknown bug or gotcha. It's often just quicker to write
something in a basic text editor.
C. Plaintext seems more suited to drafts of even longer
documents. You can focus on your content and ignore the
presentation. I've known students who have wasted precious time
trying to get margins, fonts and other aspects of a "wordprocessed"
document to their liking. They could have been focusing on the
logic of their aruments or the soundness of their evidence.
D. Plaintext moves us away from slavishly following
technological fashion sycles. It reduces our "need" to evaluate
every new editing software that is marketed or remarketed. I have
wasted a great deal of time trying to find the perfect
one-size-fits-all solution. This following of fads has taken up
valuable time that could have been spent learning the basic tools
for creating documents in a manner that is organically related to
my *NIX operating systems. For instance, the process of learning
how to use groff more effectively helps me to understand the
what is actually involved and diminishes my ignorance.
E. There is a significant difference in resource use
between an text editor and a word processor. I know, I know.
Hardware is cheaper and faster now so we need not worry about
resources. There is enough RAM and CPU capacity now to do
virtually anything. No pun intended. But, there are a couple of
problems with this thinking. First of all, it falls right into the
planned obsolecsence trap. I actually get sick thinking about all
the perfectly good hardware that gets trucked off to landfills.
Secondly, it assumes that everyone on the planet has access to
these resources. Most don't. Ironically, we further empower those
who are able to control rare earth and precious metals markets
with our wastefulness as well.
The Pareto Principle postulates that a 20% investment of effort
achieves 80% of the desired effect. I often wonder what would
happen if 20% of computer users took up the aesthetic and practice
of plaintexting. Would we see a dramatic increase in computer
competency through time? Would we witness the dimiinshment of bloat
and bother on the Web? Would the quality of writing (and,
argument) improve discernably? I suspect it would through time.
