20210107 ADVOCATING FOR PLAINTEXT
=================================

I have been advocating for plaintext for a number of years now. 
Why? Well, there are a number of reasons. The following is not an 
exhaustive list.

	A. I have files that I cannot open because I no longer 
have access to the proprietary software that I used to make them. 
If I fossicked around, I probably could find a conversion program. 
But, why should I have to do that? Similarly, there have been many 
instances where I've passed on a document to someone else and they 
have been unable to open it. In this case, the software is still 
generallly available. However, my confrere did not have convenient 
access. Of course, this would happen at the most inopportune 
times.

	B. Starting up word processing software can be a pain. 
Learning how to use all the relevant and not so relevant functions 
can take more time than I have to invest in many cases. And, time 
spent making the document look presentable can be lost because of 
some unknown bug or gotcha. It's often just quicker to write 
something in a basic text editor.

	C. Plaintext seems more suited to drafts of even longer 
documents. You can focus on your content and ignore the 
presentation. I've known students who have wasted precious time 
trying to get margins, fonts and other aspects of a "wordprocessed" 
document to their liking. They could have been focusing on the 
logic of their aruments or the soundness of their evidence.

	D. Plaintext moves us away from slavishly following 
technological fashion sycles. It reduces our "need" to evaluate 
every new editing software that is marketed or remarketed. I have 
wasted a great deal of time trying to find the perfect 
one-size-fits-all solution. This following of fads has taken up 
valuable time that could have been spent learning the basic tools 
for creating documents in a manner that is organically related to 
my *NIX operating systems. For instance, the process of learning 
how to use groff more effectively helps me to understand the 
what is actually involved and diminishes my ignorance.

	E. There is a significant difference in resource use 
between an text editor and a word processor. I know, I know. 
Hardware is cheaper and faster now so we need not worry about 
resources. There is enough RAM and CPU capacity now to do 
virtually anything. No pun intended. But, there are a couple of 
problems with this thinking. First of all, it falls right into the 
planned obsolecsence trap. I actually get sick thinking about all 
the perfectly good hardware that gets trucked off to landfills. 
Secondly, it assumes that everyone on the planet has access to 
these resources. Most don't. Ironically, we further empower those 
who are able to control rare earth and precious metals markets 
with our wastefulness as well.

The Pareto Principle postulates that a 20% investment of effort 
achieves 80% of the desired effect. I often wonder what would 
happen if 20% of computer users took up the aesthetic and practice 
of plaintexting. Would we see a dramatic increase in computer 
competency through time? Would we witness the dimiinshment of bloat 
and bother on the Web? Would the quality of writing (and, 
argument) improve discernably? I suspect it would through time.