Skip to main content

The curse of Desktop Publishing

No one really talks about Desktop Publishing any more - certainly not with capital letters. We just do it.

The youngsters amongst you won't remember the thrill in the mid-to-late 80s of using Aldus Pagemaker. We had a dedicated PC at work with a massive screen (well, it seemed massive - I think it was 20 inch) just for Pagemaker wrangling. It was a whole new world when compared with word processing - you could lay things out, make beautiful documents, just like in a real publication.

Now, of course, it's commonplace, and though there are still DTP packages around, most of us can do all we need with a word processor. There isn't really a separate concept of desktop publishing. We all do fancy layout.

And there, I'd suggest, lies the source of a small but sad development in our culture. When I was little, if you got a certificate, it was something special. You'd put it in an album or on your wall. You'd be proud of it. Now, certificates are so easy to knock up, that you can get one for turning up at school with your shoelaces tied. Or for wiping your nose correctly. They're so easy to make, they've been devalued. They come home crumpled up in schoolbags and half the time we don't even get shown them.

Of course, it could just be that our children are getting older... but my suspicion is that certificates are now too common because they are too easy to make. {END GRUMPY OLD MAN MODE}

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope