Jim Henderson wrote:

> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to 
> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>

That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well 
documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:19:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to
>> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>
> 
> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
> :-P

LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>> :-P
> 
> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)

Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no 
matter how good the manual is. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:01:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>>> :-P
>> 
>> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)
> 
> Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no
> matter how good the manual is. ;-)

True, but as we've already discussed, there are people using templates in 
Word without issue, so it's not poor documentation, but rather a lack of 
understanding of the documentation that's the issue.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message