Talk:Aldus Corporation

Untitled
Does anyone have any information on Aldus PhotoStyler and what happened to it? Did it have anything to do with Photoshop? --NeoThe1 06:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.jlittlewood.com/tech/setup/photostyler.htm might shed some light on what happened to it after the merger. http://www.ulead.com/pi/history.htm shows what the original developers have been up to. -- Parody 00:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aldus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717233355/http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/freehand.htm to http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/freehand.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo
From a quick google search, it seems that the photo on this article isn't actually the (former) logo of Aldus Corporation; it just seems to be a random picture of a drawing of the guy, Aldus Manutius, who the corporation was named after (which the logo also is, but it is a different drawing). Worse, it doesn't even mention that it's just a photo of him, probably leading the average reader to believe that that's the former Aldus Corporation logo. Here's one source for the seemingly true logo: https://artzink-studio.blogspot.com/2013/12/andy-warhal-digital-art.html. Should we update the logo of the article to this one, or at least remove the existing image? ThePlug111 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Weasel
Which weasel words, JL? Discuss.Exquisite2 (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Three problematic phrases that added/restored are:
 * some considered
 * was said to be
 * it seemed odd that
 * The first two are are nearly verbatim from the examples of weasel words. The later is an example of editorializing.
 * With that said, I don’t think the problems with your content is purely in the phrasing. I believe that some of the facts that you support adding/retaining, while plausibly relevant, likely hinder the reader. Take for example the statement about Mac being the de facto OS among designers. That statement is certainly related to the article topic, but how it relates is not clear. This leaves the reader to infer a connection, and in a case like this, greatly differing explanations might seem equally reasonable:
 * Catering to Windows users was a brilliant way for Aldus to find a userbase that QuarkXPress was ignoring.
 * Catering to Windows users was a terrible business strategy because that userbase had already vanished.
 * These both seem plausible to me, and they are pretty much opposite ideas! We do the reader a disservice when we include facts that leave them confused or—worse—inferring something quite wrong.
 * Two additional notes:
 * I have separate misgivings about the statement about Mac market dominance without a valid reference. While we should strive to provide a valid reference for all statements, I think it’s extra importance when the terms of the statement ("de facto" DTP platform in this case) are hard to define.
 * You keep changing the spelling of ‘illustration’ to ‘illutration’ [sic].
 * I recommend that we stick with my simpler version of these paragraphs for the short term, but I’d be happy to collaborate on a more expansive version if we can find trustworthy referenences that allow us to craft a coherent narrative with confidences in our correctness. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  14:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * …aaaaand two hours later was blocked as a sockpuppet. So glad I crafted that meticulous response. 🤦 —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  21:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)