From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniele Pizzolli Subject: Re: Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:37:09 +0100 Message-ID: <86bnmpxlh6.fsf@me.localhost.invalid> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54833) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4rYV-0002oH-KP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 08:37:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4rYQ-0000vZ-Lm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 08:37:19 -0500 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:38232) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4rYQ-0000vS-Fo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 08:37:14 -0500 Received: from mfilter25-d.gandi.net (mfilter25-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.153]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2DD172098 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:37:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]) by mfilter25-d.gandi.net (mfilter25-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLOyzptZFnQH for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:37:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.invalid (host53-18-static.13-188-b.business.telecomitalia.it [188.13.18.53]) (Authenticated sender: me@toel.it) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E815917207C for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:37:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Ken Mankoff's message of "Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:47:39 -0500") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Org-mode mailing list Hello, Ken Mankoff writes: > People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri] > available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069 > > Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used > in Academic Research and Development > > Summary: Word users are more efficient and have less errors than even > experienced LaTeX users. As other said, the efficiency in the paper is about the manual copy of a small portion of text, tables... This is a little bit different to publish a research, maybe a reproducible one, with the help of a team. > Someone here should repeat experiment and add Org into the mix, perhaps > Org -> ODT and/or Org -> LaTeX and see if it helps or hurts. I assume > Org would trump LaTeX, but would Org -> ODT or Org -> X -> DOCX (via > pandoc) beat straight Word? Repeating a flawed experiment do not add a lot of value... Best, Daniele