by uger on 12/26/21, 1:45 PM with 38 comments
by cs702 on 12/26/21, 5:23 PM
But... they did not break down results by field (!), and also did not ask the researchers to compose a complex, highly structured document akin to something that they would actually publish (!), and also did not ask the researchers to reorganize a structured document repeatedly, as is typical in research (!), and also did not ask the researchers to recreate tables multiple times with updated data (!).
Not a very useful study.
by fsh on 12/26/21, 5:35 PM
The first example is a plain text with a few footnotes in a two-column scientific journal layout. The participants were asked to "reproduce" this text, but the article does not explain what is meant by that. Is it a mistake if the font sizes and spacings don't exactly match? This would certainly explain why LaTeX users had a lot more "formatting errors and typos" and wrote less text (presumably they spent a lot of time trying to google a suitable template). This is not representative of typical paper writing, where you either have a template provided by the journal or you just pick something you like.
The second text are some tables and they get the unsurprising result that making tables in LaTeX really sucks.
The third text is heavy on equations and they get the unsurprising result that the Word equation editor really sucks.
From this they somehow conclude that using LaTeX is a waste of taxpayer money.
by beloch on 12/26/21, 5:45 PM
1. 40 is not an adequate sample size. Not even close.
2. Continuous text entry in LaTeX and Word is very similar, so why are LaTeX users far behind Word users here? Did the researchers measure typing speed and control for that, so that the Word group wasn't given a set of typists who were, on average, faster?
3. For the equation entry portion, did they control for user expertise when assigning participants to groups? e.g. Asking a psychologist to typeset a physics equation is going to result in slower work and more mistakes. With a sample size of 40, an imbalance of just a person or two could easily throw the whole study off. (Note: They did find that LaTeX was better for equations, which is not surprising. Their methods are still suspect though.)
4. This study does not address the specific tasks most people use LaTeX for: papers and books. Both are longer than a quick and dirty copy job, and such jobs benefit greatly from LaTeX's ability to produce consistent output when edited. Word documents break in all sorts of strange ways once they become long and complex enough.
by JCWasmx86 on 12/26/21, 4:38 PM
- The standard unix tools (E.g. grep) do work really well with LaTeX, if I have to find something. I would now know how to find a string in like 30-40 .doc(x) files
- Works with git
- Programmatically generating LaTeX is really simple as it is just text (I use this e.g. in my Vala Project. Sure for other language there are libraries to generate .docx files, but LaTeX works for me here better, as I generate dozens of diagrams and so on)
- FLOSS and fully documented
- Documentation is far better (E.g. How do I do X? The results for Word are often spam-like)
by mcswell on 12/27/21, 2:45 AM
A few weeks ago, I was tearing my hair out trying to get simple list numbering (1, 2, 3. Some non-list text. 1, 2, 3, 4...). Word seems to think that if you start numbering a list at the beginning of a doc, and then you go back to Body Text (or the horribly named Normal text), and then twenty pages later you start another list, this next list must be a continuation of the first list. What idiot decided that? You have to right-click on the first list item of the second list and do "Restart numbering at 1". And even then I was getting weird numbering of list items, like 1, 2, 5. No visible reason, and very hard to fix.
Legal section numbering in Word? Like 1, 1.1., 1.2, 2, 2.1,... Don't even try. It used to be a built-in, but it was so buggy they removed the built-in. There are instructions on the web for how to create such section numbering in Word ex nihilo, but the instructions are so complex that I haven't even tried. (And probably just as buggy as the list numbering.)
Both list and legal section numbering work out of the box in LaTeX, of course.
by zdw on 12/26/21, 5:14 PM
by marcodiego on 12/26/21, 5:49 PM
by mturmon on 12/26/21, 10:22 PM
There were 40 subjects, not randomly selected, and they had no way to normalize for skill or motivation.
The tasks are mimicry, not scholarly document preparation.
The evaluation metric is not really even given.
And the biases of the researchers are evident — last line of the paper:
“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.”
There is no way the data they have is sufficient to reach this conclusion. What an embarrassment.
by infogulch on 12/26/21, 5:42 PM
by dynamic_sausage on 12/26/21, 5:17 PM
I especially liked the claim that "expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users", which classifies a user as expert if they used either typesetting system long enough. It is pretty clear though that most LaTeX users have exactly the knowledge required to typeset the exact kinds of documents they normally author with maximal efficiency, rather than to typeset all kinds of documents. For an alternative measure of expertise, how many of the "expert" users actually read, say, Knuth's TeXbook? (not that they need to, of course)
by kevinventullo on 12/26/21, 5:29 PM
However, their suggestion that journals should ban submissions in LaTex seems rather bizarre. It is not the journal’s job to ensure research is done as efficiently as possible.
by analog31 on 12/26/21, 6:50 PM
But it wasn't a fair comparison, because the students using Latex were also using Unix computers, and were genuinely interested in the nuts and bolts of the process. They were also settled on being able to push a button and have a beautiful book slide out of the laser printer.
The students who used more primitive tools simply accepted that their formatting would be more primitive. I used an antiquated scientific word processing program called T3 on a MS-DOS machine, and covered for its deficiencies by fixing my manuscript with pen and ink before taking it to be photocopied.
In my dad's dissertation from the 1950s, the equations, chemical diagrams, and graphs, are all drawn by hand. You wrote your manuscript by hand, and paid a typist to make the final copies after your committee had approved it.
Today, I think formal typesetting is disappearing. They should compare Latex, Word, Jupyter, and the e-mail editor.
by chromatin on 12/26/21, 4:14 PM
Big Oof
> LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software.
Ok so there's that as a highly redeeming feature =)
by i_am_proteus on 12/26/21, 5:16 PM
One big advantage of LaTeX over Word, for this user, is consistency in formatting for larger documents, which gets completely lost for a one- or two-page piece that takes just a half-hour to type.
by Finnucane on 12/26/21, 5:02 PM
by ianbooker on 12/26/21, 5:00 PM
by zoomablemind on 12/26/21, 7:31 PM
Figure and table placement is still manual per pub requirements, but page/section/font/size styling should be already defined.
by scrubs on 12/26/21, 5:17 PM
Now ... imagine Bill Murray with a tie and glasses who then gives you the follow pep talk:
For the slow pokes on latex we recommend coffee, 80s R&B to help you get in there and get done.
Have a hot date setup ahead of time ... This helps you to not play with every configuration and possible import option. Yes latex is awesome but that not that awesome. Keep it simple. Don't let latex weakness build into relationship problems by running late. That takes time away from the keyboard later.
Also remember the words you write are almost as important as how latex displays them so keep some of your focus in reserve for clarity, thesis, stuff like that. Latex is awesome but alas clarity counts too (unless you heard something different? ... Please IM me asap. Clarity isn't so simple it turns out).
Well that's a wrap. Another problem solved!
by mmcgaha on 12/26/21, 4:45 PM
by bodhiandpysics1 on 12/26/21, 4:45 PM
by cozzyd on 12/26/21, 4:50 PM
by noisem4ker on 12/26/21, 4:45 PM