|
From: | Simon Albrecht |
Subject: | Re: Cover page |
Date: | Wed, 12 Sep 2018 02:14:51 +0200 |
On 12.09.2018 00:48, Noeck wrote:
I guess the wording might be just a bit misleading, but I disagree with that. Yes, LaTeX is good for scientific papers. But that's not because looks don't matter. It's because of the beautiful look of mathematical formulae, the clear and automatic structure of your text, the cross-references, the automatic and consistent layout etc. Most of all it is because the defaults and many documentclasses are made for scientific papers. The author of TeX actually cares a lot about beauty. All that makes a LaTeX paper much more beautiful than let's say a word document. And you can actually influence the layout a lot (cf. KOMA-Script etc.).
You’re right, my wording was misleading. What I was trying to say is that a scientific article doesn’t need an individual, characteristic look. Of course I’m aware of the aspects of typographic aesthetics and that Knuth’s prime incentive for starting the whole thing was good (and thus beautiful) typesetting of formulae. But I hope you get my point here: with a poster, the visual style is at the core of every specific one you make, and there’s a far greater need for the _immediate_ feedback of a WYSIWYG environment. And, Urs, I understand (and probably needn’t tell you) that this is not completely black-and-white: with templates and styles many WYSIWYG programs certainly allow to reuse an existing design for new contents, at least if you use them properly.
Best, Simon
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |