(Being, in part, a justification of cell-writing.)
Flow
The earliest forms of writing often had very little by way of punctuation or other ways of dividing words into convenient units of meaning. Indeed, in some ancient texts, words were sometimes not even separated. This was clearly unsatisfactory as meanings could easily be confused. Some form of separating text into meaningful units such as sentences and paragraphs was clearly necessary.
The forms that we commonly use today are conventions that have become established over time. For example, the fact that sentences are written consecutively and appear as a long string of words separated by spaces and fullstops is a product of convention. There is no reason why each sentence should not start on a new line. As they do when cell-writing. Some might argue that moving from line to line would break up the flow when reading. However, as we read we move from line to line mid-sentence without any difficulty so why should there be a problem with separate sentences. Indeed, starting each sentence in the same column may make reading easier as there is a clearer point of reference.
To have sentences running consecutively is merely a convention to which we have become accustomed. Other civilisations have, of course, used different writing systems and conventions. In fact, what we think is 'normal' was not always the case. For example, for a long time the Bible was printed in separate, numbered verses each beginning on a new line. In Europe, the division of the Bible into verses dates from 1551 when they were introduced by the French printer and classical scholar Robert Estienne (1503-1559) for his edition of the Greek New Testament. He then went on to use them again, for his French translation of the whole Bible, soon after. It is only relatively recently that modern printings – especially of the newer Bible translations – have begun to use continuous text. Even today, in some printings of the Bible each verse may still begin on a new line.
The verses of the Bible, although not strictly speaking separate sentences, are nevertheless separate units of text. In that respect they are similar to the cells used when cell-writing. Readers have no problem with maintaining a flow when reading verses from the Bible – even when verses begin or end mid-sentence and sentences begin or end mid-verse.
There is no reason why a piece of cell-written work should not be just as readable as any other. It is only convention that suggests otherwise. Even then, there are many excepts to these conventions which cause no difficulties when reading.
Paragraphs
Apart from the fact that paragraphs must begin on a new line, there appear to be no strict stylistic rules when it comes to starting a new paragraph. In a commercial context, how a paragraph is set out is often a matter of the house style. Some choose to indent the first line of a paragraph; some do not. For those that do, there is no predetermined amount by which one must indent. One may choose almost any depth of indentation that one feels looks good. Where indenting is not used, it is often the case – particularly in business letters – to find that an empty line separates paragraphs. Furthermore, one may apply one rule to the very first paragraph of a piece of writing but not to the rest. For example, the first paragraph may be indented but not the rest – or vice versa. Some publishers choose to capitalise the first three words or so of the first paragraph of a chapter. Some go so far as to capitalise the whole first line. In the past, in those Bibles where the verses are printed starting on separate lines, an indication of the division into paragraphs was sometimes provided by putting a pilcrow symbol – ¶ - at the start of a new paragraph.
The key feature of a paragraph is not its stylistic appearance but its separation from other pieces of text. A paragraph is a block of text, considering of separate sentences, which presents a circumscribed unit of thought in writing. One could have a dozen sentences each beginning on a separate line and still for this to be identifiable as a paragraph by simply separating each paragraphs by an empty line. This is the practice I adopt when cell-writing.
Cell-Writing vs Word Processing
Let us not forget that we are primarily concerned here with the construction of a piece of writing, not how it looks. Cell-writing is not meant to produce a piece of writing in its final form. As noted elsewhere, word processors are good at making text look good on the page; that is what, I have suggested, they are best at doing. When words need to given a nice appearance on the page, then word processors should be used.
Word processors have taken the way we write on paper and turned it into a way of doing much the same on a screen. In so doing, they have not really added anything new to the writing process. The programming teams that have produced these applications have behaved primarily as followers of convention. They have not acted as innovators. They have adopted uncritically the conventional methods of writing and have produced a technological version of it. Furthermore, in so doing they have further reinforced the conventional approach. This is a pity – and not only for those of us with difficulties when it comes to writing. Those who work with computers have typically been seen as innovative and creative thinkers. Unfortunately, this has not shown itself as well as it might have done when it comes to devising ways of writing.
My Ideal Writing Application
After what I just said about (or rather against) word processors, I should perhaps suggest what my ideal writing application would be like. Originally, I called this section 'My Ideal Word Processor' and started to describe it. However, it should not be called a word processor as such as it is writing that is the object. Writing requires the management of ideas, not just words.
In my ideal writing application, I would like there to be two modes of operation between which one can quickly and easily switch. One might think of these as 'writing mode' and 'finishing mode'.
The first phase of operation – 'writing mode' – would be concerned primarily with putting down content and structuring and composing the piece. This mode would take the form of cell-writing. It would adopt a spreadsheet-like interface with only a fairly basic set of commands: those necessary for writing good quality content without distraction. When working in this mode, content would be entered into cells and these moved around the screen as and when necessary.
The second phase of operation – 'finishing mode' – would be concerned with the finalisation of the text. This would include its appearance. This mode would be the same as that of a standard word processor. Once the content has been largely constructed in 'writing mode', switching to 'finishing mode' would allow the final phases of formatting etc. to be performed.