Conference bulova::decw_jan-89_to_nov-90

No cutting, no printing.    -Lance

    Is this for real?  You're going to break with the Style Guide and
    cripple your application for a whim?  I can't count the number of times
    I've wanted to copy the call sequence to a DECwindows routine from the
    Bookreader.  These priorities are broken.
    
    	HRB
    
    whim:  Release notes are copyrighted, but have no protection against
    copying or printing.  Trying to paste a significant portion of a
    Bookreader display would be extremely difficult, and pasting a small
    portion falls under "fair use."  Printing from DECwindows is harder on
    the operator and on the printer than sending a manual down to the copy
    center.  Our customers, by and large, are not crooks.  Breaking
    reasonable operations to prevent them from obtaining copies they could
    obtain more easily other ways is not the right thing, and is, in fact,
    whimsical.

Nothing is being broken or crippled here.  The bookreader uses pre-formatted
files (final format) files.  In these files, there is no concept of ASCII
characters, so cut and paste are not even possible.  The bookreader just
puts "font character number so-and-so at location such-and-such".  Its just
a limitation stemming from the fact that bookreader files are final form.

-Mike

RE: .3

Unfortunately, this is not something that users are aware of.  They merely see
that they can cut and paste freely between all applications--except Bookreader.
Therefore, Bookreader has either a bug or a product deficiency.

Maybe it's time to re-think the use of final format for the documents that
Bookreader displays.

--PSW

When something better is available we'll use it.
Right now DDIF and DECwrite don't have sufficient features
to support the Bookreader, but we are discussing that
with them.

The problem isn't just final form, though that is part
of it.  The other problem is retaining sufficient semantics
in the Bookreader files to process them as random access
books with cross-referenced tables of contents and indecies.

We agree that the lack of cut-n-paste sounds "dumb/broken"
whatever, but there are legitimate historical reasons for
it that we are working to correct.

- greg

ps: and we'll have to make some business and legal decisions
    about the implications of CNP for the Bookreader.  We
    didn't intentionally cripple it to avoid these, but I
    for one am glad we didn't have that headache on top of
    everything else.  We _think_ we'll be pretty generous
    about this, but it'll take some careful review.

    Re .most:

    Just out of curiosity... Are there any relevant standards out there for
    things like the 'final format' used by the Bookreader? Standards meant
    for online book reading, that is; do we know what Microsoft, Lotus and
    others that have a bigger and bigger investment in CDs are doing in this
    field? Isn't the timing right for us to make up our mind and join (or
    form) one of the numerous industry groups working on related subjects?
    Are we busy reinventing the wheel?

    Denis.

As a dumb observer, I don't see any difference between cut-and-paste from
our copyrighted on-line manuals and a photocopier and our printed manuals.  
We put our messages of copyright on them and release them.  We prosecute 
violations we deem to be in our best interest to prosecute.


Chad

> Maybe it's time to re-think the use of final format for the documents that
> Bookreader displays.

One big advantage of using final form documents is that its fast to display.
Can you imagine trying to use the bookreader if it had to reformat every
page every time you wanted to display something? I doubt that it'd be very
usable.  Some books already take HOURS to build.  Also, as .5 says, try to
think of how you'd do cross referencing, table of contents, and indexing.

This may not be the correct place to make a suggestion for BookReader (is it?), 
but I'll try anyway:

It's somewhat upsetting to wonder if there are "hot spots" in a given diaplayed 
page; sometimes feeling like wondering the cursor over the page to see if 
anything will highlight.

How about taking the rectangle that does highlight over a hotspot and always 
displaying it with a very light shaded background?  It would be unobstrusive,
and very intuitive.

Jeff

re: .6 standards

I'm not aware of any standards though I haven't researched it very
hard.  My impression is that most vendors are "doing their own thing".

It's not necessarily a simple standard.  Vendors would have all sorts
of different ideas about how to store the data for optimal retrieval,
many tuned for use with their own proprietary retrieval software.

So I don't think we're re-inventing the wheel --- doesn't look to
me that anyone's done a really good wheel job yet.


re: .7 copyright

It's not the same as photocopying.  First, we don't ship a photocopier
with the docset.  Shipping cut-n-paste could be interpretted by a court
as an _invitation_ to copy, regardless of what our copyright notice
says.  Second, legal believes, and we agree, that online documentation
is really software --- not traditional "paper" documentation; as such
there are various implications around licensing that don't exist for
the paper.

Finally, it's not so much a question of what they _can_ do, or what
legal remedies we might have, but rather a question of what we _want_
them to do and whether or not there would be any associated fee
structure.

However, anyone that looks at the pricing of Bookreader and its
books should recognize Digital's clear intent to be very friendly
on this subject; we want users to have the documentation and in
an easy-to-use and effective form.  We just haven't discussed the
details of cut-n-paste yet because we really haven't had to and
I don't want to set expectations one way or the other until we've
done our homework.


re: .9 highlight hotspots

Yes, we agree completely.  I'm sure the developers do also.  I've
heard that with bitmapped displays and proportional spacing it's a
bit harder to do than it might sound and so was deferred.

- greg


ps: this subject might be better continued in the Bookreader conference.

> re: .6 standards
> 
> I'm not aware of any standards though I haven't researched it very
> hard.  My impression is that most vendors are "doing their own thing".
>
> It's not necessarily a simple standard.  Vendors would have all sorts
> of different ideas about how to store the data for optimal retrieval,
> many tuned for use with their own proprietary retrieval software.
>
> So I don't think we're re-inventing the wheel --- doesn't look to
> me that anyone's done a really good wheel job yet.

    GREAT! Let's take the lead, invest lots of $s, sign up big industry
    names (Microsoft, IBM, etc...), and build the OPEN online documentation
    system which everyone will be using for the coming 20 years! Or get OSF
    to look very very seriously at the problem. If we don't do that, we'll
    continue to build our own stuff like everyone does, and we'll get
    screwed in the end like everyone will (except maybe one company) when a
    standard starts being pushed.

    Denis.

I know that "standards" and "openness" are the current industry
buzzwords these days but I question the sudden trend to try and
standardize technologies that are very immature.  It used to be
that standards happened _after_ technologies reached some base
level of quality and began to slow down in terms of change.

Sigh, maybe we're becoming like consumer electronics where major
innovation can no longer be easily introduced unless a standard
is written first (VCRs, CD, CDROM, CDI, Stereo, Hi-def TV, etc).

However, we are touching bases with OSF ... I'd sure like to
see us get V2/V3 of the Bookreader/writer implemented before
we shoot for a standard though.

A good place to start, though, would be to incorporate book
semantics into DDIF.  That's more important in my view than
standardizing the Bookreader final form files.  Then the
Bookreader could be linked to our CDA and its conforming
product set.  This is being discussed.

- greg

    Just make sure that the PC and MAC world doesn't come out with
    something which they'll be happy to force down our throat. I'm just
    stunned by some of the recent progress made by popular packages in
    terms of online context sensitive help, computer based instruction, and
    online documentation. The marketing battle has already started to shift
    from 'who has the fastest or best compiler/spreadsheet/work processor'
    to 'who can produce the best hypertext online help/CBI/online reference
    material'. We are already years behindin that field, and we'll be soon
    dead if we don't attempt to leapfrog those folks; blurring the issue by
    getting the industry to embark on a standardization process is one
    effective way of doing it.

    Back to the real world of coding and deadlines,
    Denis.

I concur that PCs and Macintoshes are way ahead in the context-sensitive
and hyper-everything field.

Check out the on-line, hyper-help for the newest version of Claris's 
MacProject II, V2.0.  It uses a HyperCard enginer from within the application's
help subsystem to provide full HyperCard-style help.  Also, I just read that
WildCard, a compiled, compatible version of HyperCard FOR THE PC, is not 
on the market!

Jeff

>I know that "standards" and "openness" are the current industry
>buzzwords these days but I question the sudden trend to try and
>standardize technologies that are very immature.
    
    Thanks for that, Greg.  I've always wondered what a good way to say
    that would be.
    
John