RE: equation editors and TeX (long) (was "Equation Editor")

[Martin Sevior <msevior mccubbin ph unimelb edu au>]

> > The editing component should be modeless and stay up and 
> > available until
> > the user wishes to close it. The most recent equation is 
> > displayed in the
> > editor and can be inserted at any point in the document with a single
> > mouse click.
> 
> If by "modeless", you mean its toolbar, etc. stays up until the user
> dismisses it, even if the user is not actually entering an equation, then I
> agree. 

Yes that's what I mean.

> That said, I still think that equation editing has to be a mode for
> many of the same reasons TeX has a mode. While editing an equation, the user
> needs to have an extensive set of keyboard shortcuts available that probably
> overlap with that of the word processor. 

Certainly that is what I mean. If the user focuses the ee the keyboard
shortcuts are are appropriate for the ee.

> The word processor's font selection
> model (choose a font/style, type, choose another font/style, type some more)
> must be different from that of an equation editor's (font/style for
> variables and text fragments is set up ahead of time, interrupted by the
> occasional math symbol, the entry of which doesn't change the current
> font/style). The space bar should probably be disabled as spacing should be
> automatic. Math typesetting uses about 6 different space widths, non of
> which is equal to the standard inter-word space. And so on.
>

This is a good hint. Thanks. Hmm there are times when I do want a space
though. Maybe the ee should be smart enough to put the right amount of
space given the context.

> > The document and the contect of the equation should be visible at all
> > times.
> 
> Agreed. Although it probably has nothing to do with your point, I'd like to
> mention that "in-place editing" as in Word is cool in that the illusion is
> maintained that the user is still editing in the document.

I think this might be an example of what is cool for developers but not
for a real user. I actually think a pop-up modeless dialog with
the equation zoomed would be more useful.

>  However, it is
> less that ideal for math as the document editing is usually performed at a
> viewing scale of close to 100%. This results in text that is too small for
> many equation features to be seen with current display devices. Unlike
> Equation Editor's default of in-place editing, MathType defaults to editing
> in a separate window at a scale of 200%.
> 

I think this is a good thing.

> > You should be able to to select type of equation components 
> > using arrow
> > keys and "enter". The current equation component is highlighted with a
> > light colour and can be shifted around the selection 
> > rectangle with the
> > arrow keys. Like Abiword's "Insert Symbol". 
> 
> I believe there are too many math symbols to affectively select them by
> arrow keys and enter alone. MathType uses a customizable toolbar that the
> user can arrow around in as well as assign keystrokes to their favorite
> symbols and templates. I haven't seen Abiword's interface, so I apologize if
> I have it wrong.
> 

You should download the Windows version and try it. It's only 5 megabytes.
(http://www.abiword.com). There are lots of features missing which we are
busily adding right now.

I agree about the keyboard shortcuts. What I have in mind is kind of half
between between picking out symbols with a mouse, which is all I've done
with an equation editor and learning the keyboard shortcuts (which I
don't remember). The Insert Symbol in Abi presents a 32 by 8 grid of
symbols to choose. You can use the mouse to pick them or you can navigate
around with the arrow keys. As each point in the grid is selected it
colours the grid in blue and shows the selected symbol in a zoomed box on
the dialog. You can insert the current selected symbol into your document
by pressing return. With auto-repeat this actually quite fast even with
32*8 grid. An equation editor presents a much smaller cascading menu of
symbols. Select the top level with arrows and enter, then select the
nect element and so forth. I think this would be fast than using a mouse
and your hands nevr have to leave the keyboard. I think it would work and
I want to try it.
<snip>
> 
> > We should have an easily accessible help available from within the
> > component with help limited to just the equation editor.

This is a must. I guess the reason never learn the keybaord shortcuts in
Word is because I didn't know they were there. The help system in Word is
really frustrating. Luckily hyperlinks have been invented since the word
help system was written. These make find stuff much easier. We will do
much better here than Word 97.
> 
> > Finally the document should be able to be exported to Latex so that
> > people who prefer that environment or for whom MathML is not 
> > sufficent can
> > do their stuff. (Me)
> 
> Sure, but do you really want to design a system with the assumption that it
> won't be the best tool for the job ;-).

Well I've been around computers long enough that I don't expect everybody
to agree with me. I don't understand why everyone keeps buying Windows
machines but they do.

> 
> > I've thought about your enhanced XML and I don't agree. If 
> > MathML is not
> > sufficiently rich it should be expanded by a standards 
> > committee so that
> > everyone can easily exchange documents. We in Abi already 
> > have export to
> > Latex so this is an easy decision. 
> 
> So, what you are saying is that Gnome/Abiword's word processor and equation
> editor will be good for making very basic technical documents, but for
> "real" technical work, users should export to LaTeX. That really makes me
> sad. If you have set your sights this low, you can definitely count me out.
> Say it ain't so.
> 

Well far be it for me to say what gnome believes but I think Abiword
developrs feel quite strongly about this. We want to be 100% standards
compliant. Think of it as marketing opportunity for you. You can offer an
enhanced Math component. I don't think MathML is such a low standard. My
course in advanced ElectroDynamics and all of the papers I've published
(I'm an experimental Particle Physicist) can be accomodated in MathML I
think. Frankly I can't think of the sort of technical work that not would
be covered by MathML and I don't want to delay implementing a math system
that will accomodate 99.5% of our users with an escape hatch for the
remaining 0.5% while a more advanced system is developed. We gain a lot of
momentum and can reuse a lot of code by being Standards Compliant. We can
even blame someone else if a users special feature is missing - or we
could direct them to you :-)

> > Anyway that's what I want from an entry point of view. I 
> > think it is all
> > doable. From a display point of view there is lots of code to 
> > borrow. The
> > MathML project in Mozzilla appears to making good progress in 
> > implementing
> > Latex quality symbol positioning. When I get the chance I'll look into
> > that.
> 
> What I've seen of the MathML project in Mozilla looks really pretty good.
> However, I must insist that you really think hard about this. Users that
> have to create real technical documents will be forced to wait for years for
> stuff to get added to MathML, symbols added to Unicode, and implementers to
> catch up to both. MathML is an exchange format!!! An equation editor should
> be able to both import it and export it, via cut-and-paste, drag-and-drop,
> and programmatically.
> 

See above. Just coming up with a new XML format would be real hard work
for us, (well me). I'd rather devote that time to making a great
interface.

Cheers

Martin