Hi Terry,
My thoughts:
1- Not my experience, as much as possible is electronic. Only official documents with signatures
fly around in paper and PDF (scanned for speed's sake)
2- This is true for large organizations, but I agree with many when we say that the sweet
spot is Small and Medium Business
3- This is a decision that lies with IT a lot of times and not with the users. In fact many
have a "locked-down desktop". Again SMB is the way..
4- Agree
5- Agree
Good thinking. Ciao,
Gian
On Sat 03/03/12 01:31 , Terry terauck-aoomark@yahoo.com.au sent:
> I don't get the metaphor but never mind that. My observations are based
> on several years of tracking forum posts and working in business
> environments.
> 1. In my day (and I know things may have changed), most documents
> dispatched by an organisation were (are) in hard copy form, Bureaucracy
> still reigns supreme, so I doubt that much has changed in that respect. I
> know that the paper war I experience is as active as ever. Format
> compatibility is not required for documents which will be printed before
> dispatch.
> 2. Many documents are produced in an organisation for use within an
> organisation. Compatibility with other formats is not required for
> that.
>
> 3. Many individuals who require compatibility do so in order to work with
> their employer's documents. If their employer uses the open document
> format so will they.
> 4. Organisations raising issues on forums have, more often than not, been
> obliged to use other software to gain the feature they need. One issue
> which has surfaced a few times has been the difficulty of enabling editing
> by more than one user at a time. A recent one concerned the lack of
> security for temporary files created by the software.
> 5. The article cited refers to collaboration via the web. If MSFT and
> Google see that as a market worth providing for, we could pay it some
> attention.
> Terry
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton denni
> s.hamilton@acm.org>> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org> Cc:
> > Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 6:11 AM
> > Subject: RE: Re: Re: OpenOffice promotion
> tips>
> >T he problem will be turning the puffery about
> "compatible with Microsoft > Office formats" into something fact-based that does
> not lead to folks > abandoning OOo after enough failed interop
> efforts. Also, some folks do have > different user-experience preferences.
> >
> > The problem will be akin to this:
> > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/231294/office_365
> _vs_google_docs_showdown_feature_by_feature.html>. > (See the sideways reference
to LibreOffice in the
> File Fidelity section.)>
> > - Dennis
> >
> > PS: For Firefox, the issue was who does HTML better
> along with features such as > speed, presumed security, price and ease of
> substitution. At the moment, doing > ODF better is not a compelling factor. I
believe
> price and availability (Linux, > Macintosh, Windows) are factors at the consumer
> level, and interchange fidelity > is the fence around that corral.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ramon Sole [ramon.
> sole@opscons.com] > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 02:36
> > To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Re: Re: OpenOffice promotion
> tips>
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > Maybe we should position AOO as a "better" product
> than MS Office -and >
> > that's doesn't mean more features, that's mean more
> suitable for the >
> > average user.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
>
>
>
|