
\centerline{\bf \TeX\ and TUG Go International}
\centerline{\bf	A Trip Report}
\medskip
\noindent
This summer, I had the pleasure of attending two
major \TeX\ meetings --- ``\TeX eter'' and the annual TUG
meeting, in Montr\'eal.  Both (particularly Exeter) were
notable for the number of new faces that could be attached
to names, and the quality and content of the technical
programs made it abundantly clear that \TeX\ is no longer
just a computer hobbyist's playground (if it ever was).

\medskip
\leftline{\bf \TeX88, Exeter}
\smallskip\noindent
Exeter is an old town in the south west of England, on the Exe river.  The
university was founded in this century, in the grounds of an old estate
which is also a botanical garden and arboretum.  The conference was
most competently arranged by Malcolm Clark and Cathy Booth, with help
from Ewart North.  A three-day program was surrounded by short courses
and workshops.

Before the conference proper, I was kindly permitted to sit in on the
second day of the session on document design.  This was led by Paul Stiff,
of the University of Reading.
As we all have heard many times before, it was stressed that the real
purpose of technical (and other) documents is communication, to provide a
means by which an author's ideas can be communicated to a reader.
Anything that gets in the way of that goal is thus poor design, whether or
not the appearance of the document is attractive.  (A pleasing appearance
is desirable, but secondary.)
Though there seems to be no ``cookbook'' that one can refer to, keeping in
mind how a document is to be used should prompt its creator to do the
``right'' thing.  And looking at many instances of similar documents,
deciding which are most effective at their task of communication and why,
is one of the best ways to develop a sense of appropriate design.

The conference program consisted of talks on various topics related to \TeX\
and \MF, with a break on the second afternoon for an excursion on an old
steam train and a cruise up the Dart River.  Malcolm Clark presented a
memorable harangue on how \TeX\ users should make their presence better 
known in the composition world.

Several speakers presented their experiences providing \TeX\ production
services.  (My favorite quote was: ``Academic publishers have to live
day by day with the lunatic fringe --- they are our authors!''
from Rod Mulvey, Cambridge University Press.)
Publishers are interested in lower costs, but without sacrificing
quality.  With some adustments (e.g., more traditional fonts), \TeX\ is
becoming accepted in this environment.  One speaker offered this warning
about working directly with authors --- authors are often willing to
accept the limitations of {\it wysiwyg\/} word processors, but if they
know that the back end of a system is \TeX, they can and will choose
to subvert any style filter provided for them.

Several papers were presented on experiments with \MF.  Two authors
spoke on extracting \MF's spline information for use with other
graphic processors.  Victor Ostromoukhov has developed a method for
delivering the splines to \PS, and his demonstration (on a Mac, in 
the evening) of letters wrapped around spheres and other ``solid''
objects was quite captivating.

Other topics covered by the talks included support for authors (usually,
but not always, in academic environments), language-specific processing
(including the use of non-latin scripts), graphics inclusion in
\TeX\ documents (including two papers on chemistry), \TeX\ and databases,
and a description of the Aston \TeX\ archive.  Space prevents inclusion
of the full program in this issue, but the Proceedings will be published
early next year --- I am looking forward to reading them.

A topic of particular interest, though nowhere was it listed formally on
the program, was how to deal effectively with A4 paper.  \TeX, and even
more explicitly, \LaTeX, assume the use of 8\frac1/2${}\times 11''$ paper;
and output drivers assume that the reference point of a page (the
top left corner) is one inch from the top and one inch from the left edge
of the paper.  These assumptions are
not ideal for A4 paper ($ \hbox{297\,mm}\times \hbox{210\,mm}$), and much
discussion was devoted to how best to adjust both the dimensions specified
in \TeX\ macro files and \LaTeX\ style files and/or the output drivers'
assumed reference point to compensate for the different dimension systems.
However, one of the philosophical underpinnings of \TeX\ is the ability to
move documents from place to place with the assumption that they will get
the same treatment and presentation.  No good answer was found, but it seems
clear that this is an area that could benefit from rethinking, as \TeX\ is
accepted in Europe and other areas of the world even more readily (if
possible) than in North America.

In the evenings, there was plenty of time to discuss the day's events and
other topics of mutual interest.  Several personal computers were set up
in the lounge of the residence hall, and experiments were encouraged.
Chris Rowley and I were ``fingered'' to lead a clinic one evening;
apparently, most of the attendees didn't have many problems, since only
a few came to visit.  There was, however, a request for an
open problems session that couldn't be accommodated at Exeter, but should
be seriously considered for inclusion at the next Euro\TeX\ conference.

After the close of \TeX88 proper, I attended another workshop, on the
hackery of \LaTeX\ style files, led by Sue Brooks.
Once again, the A4 controversy surfaced.  When someone asked what was the
\hbox{reason} for the ``one inch'' reference-point, I said that, to the
best of my knowledge, it was arbitrary, to define
some standard to which output device drivers could be written.
\medskip
\leftline{\bf TUG annual meeting, Montr\'eal}
\smallskip\noindent
Montr\'eal is a beautiful city, with a cosmopolitan French flavour unique
in North America.  The meeting was held at McGill University, in a new
high-rise building at the edge of the campus.  The city surrounding was
evident in many ways, not the least of which was the ubiquitous construction
that seemed at times to be tunneling under the very foundations of the
building where we were meeting.  The program was put together by Dean
Guenther (again), Christina Thiele and Shawn Farrell; Shawn also coordinated
the local arrangements.  As at Exeter, the main program was preceded and
followed by short courses and workshops.

The evening before the meeting, almost everyone gathered at Le Festin du
Gouverneur, an eating place set up in Montr\'eal's old fort, where a feast
and entertainment in the style of the 17th century French settlers were
provided.  (Picture yourself eating a several-course meal with only a
knife between you and bad table manners.)  As the TUG contingent was the
largest of several groups present, the erstwhile Gouverneur was chosen
from our ranks --- none other than Bart Childs.  The Master of the Feast
saw to it that the serving wenches were most attentive.  It should be
noted, though, that Bart was on hand the next morning in time to
present the annual introduction for new members.  A worthy performance.

The general theme of the meeting was \TeX\ in production environments.
The variety of publications ``produced'' by \TeX\ is truly astounding.
When I was first introduced to \TeX\ it was still the preserve of
computer science students and a few visionary mathematicians and
physicists.  {\sc nasa} technical reports, textbooks and computer reference
manuals are natural applications for \TeX; more surprising are the
kennel club yearbooks and TV~Guide, for which the first copies with
feature pages prepared by \TeX\ rolled off the press in May.

There seemed to be no common hardware or operating environment among the
installations reported on, or even a common approach.  What was common,
however, were the reasons that \TeX\ was selected, and the fact that most
production sites have tried to integrate \TeX\ into an existing operation.
One speaker		% Mary McCaskill of NASA Langley
described her role as ``managing a system
of hardware, software and people''.  These features --- an existing
operation, comprising both skilled people and good resources --- are
characteristic of a production system.

Two areas in which it was perceived that \TeX\ could be stronger are
fonts and graphics.  Ordinarily, only Computer Modern fonts are
delivered with \TeX{}.  To install other fonts requires, at the very
least, some effort; however, production users of composition services
are simply accustomed to having a richer selection of fonts.  With
respect to graphics, the most available technique is still pasteup,
whether physical or electronic (through the output driver).  This was
a design decision by Knuth, and an extension to \TeX\ would be
required to overcome the limitation.

\medskip
\def\bull{$\bullet$}
\def\1 {\par\noindent{\bull}\ignorespaces}
\noindent
Some sensible recommendations were made by the speakers:
\1 Management {\sl must\/} coordinate all areas involved, and make
	them work together.
\1 To be successful, don't scrimp --- make sure the hardware and
	software resources are adequate.
\1 User support is important.  It isn't sufficient to hand \TB\ to
	a prospective user.  Training time is an investment that pays off.
\1 User training is best done in a language the users understand.  When
	training a design staff, use ``typesetter's terms''.
\1 Users will be at different levels; a reasonable support level might
	be 1~guru~:\ 5~macro hackers~:\ $n$ ordinary users.
\1 Use or build tools when appropriate.  If something happens more
	than 5~times, automate it; if you build a tool more than 5~times,
	build a tool-builder.
\1 Macros should be designed for optimum data-entry use, as well as to
	produce the correct format.
\1 Remember that even \TeX\ has limitations.  Instead of simply trying to
	implement an old, unsuitable format, consider how a new approach
	might be better not only for \TeX, but also for the product.
\1 For a first project, avoid one with a ``drop-dead'' deadline, if possible.
\medskip
\noindent
And several challenges were raised:

\1 To \TeX\ developers, make \TeX\ part of a {\sl complete\/} publishing
	system, including graphics.
\1 \TeX\ should be more cooperative about fine-tuning; a small change
	shouldn't lead to possible changes several pages later.
\1 Translation between other competent systems ({\it nroff}, etc.)\ and
	\TeX\ should be investigated and implemented.
\medskip
\noindent
Proceedings of both \TeX88 and the TUG meeting will be published.
Both will be available from TUG early in 1989.
\smallskip
\rightline{\sl Barbara Beeton}
