Re: How to write a "proper" math document

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg120124] Re: How to write a "proper" math document*From*: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>*Date*: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:31:11 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <201107041044.GAA02461@smc.vnet.net> <iuukk8$epi$1@smc.vnet.net> <15944200.6757.1309943765495.JavaMail.root@m06> <iv45b8$es8$1@smc.vnet.net> <iv6gqo$s5p$1@smc.vnet.net>

In article <iv6gqo$s5p$1 at smc.vnet.net>, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > We need > > the same kind of thought given to active and dynamic documents as Edward > > Tufte has given to data graphics. > > Yes, I agree entirely here. I think that Tufte is hard to match. Have to say that, back sometime around the early 1990s, which I was voluntarily teaching a small course for EE students in preparing demos and graphic displays on the Mac using QuickBasic (or was it Real Basic?) I bought Tufte to see what it might have to tell me the graphic of data and computed results -- and decided it had nothing really useful to say, was as over-hyped as it was empty of meaningful content, and discarded it. Maybe I should look again . . .

**References**:**Re: How to write a "proper" math document***From:*dr DanW <dmaxwarren@gmail.com>