... and there is a Button "Contact Author" below each message so I see no difficulties for you to contact me.

But please:

I gave up waiting for answers to special problems. In most cases the answers were like "we know it doesn't work, perhaps we will fix it".

I am using Maple TA version 5.0 and had the opportunity to test version 7.0: There is no advance concerning the flaws I had observed (to be honest I want to write here, that meanwhile the handling of plain spaces by the LaTeX converter is improved).

Nevertheless it doesn't make sense for me to use Maple TA in the future if I do not know the following:

1. Will there be an effective maintenance process to eliminate bugs and improve quality?

2. How does Maple TA see the future of LaTeX Authoring?

If - and only if - there is a positive answer to these points, I am ready to compile once again the problems I've observed.

Sincerely,

Michael.

Just to make it clear: No one contacted me - although it was announced on April 15, 2011.

Dear Alejandro,

I thank you for that hint - I think I know what you mean.

Dear Laurent,

although I feel quite strange being asked why I like to use a promised feature like LaTeX-Authoring in Maple TA, I want to tell you.

1. It seems to me that you do not know working with LaTeX so I think I should give you an example:

If I want to write a definite integral from a to b, I do it in LaTeX with

\int_a^b

and it is done.

If I want to write the same using a Formula Editor, I have to browse several menus for the integral symbol, do several mouseclicks to point to places for upper and lower boundaries, swap several times between keyboard and mouse. That is not funny. Furthermore the menu structure of your Formula Editor is inconsistent. For example the symbols for number sets like N, Z, Q, R are hidden in different places.

2. I have tons of assignments which are already realised with the help of LaTeX and which I want to bring online by cut and paste.

3. With your Question Editor I can make a layout of my questions, which is sometimes good, sometimes bad. Using LaTeX the good layout is made for me (this is not true if I use LaTeX in MapleTA).

4. Your suggestion to edit qu-Files instead is just ridiculous. The contents of a 100 lines LaTeX file is easily blown up to a qu-File with 1000 lines and more, the text is flooded with HTML-statements, clarity is totally lost. You could as well question a Java Programmer why he doesn't want to edit .class-files.

You also suggest to contact your Tech Support team with my problems. Hey, I did it - as I described in my first post - and it was noneffective. Look at Alex's reply to my problem!

In my last post I asked you for a clear answer to my question that I want to repeat here:

How does Maple TA see the future of LaTeX Authoring? Will there be a maintenance process to eliminate bugs and improve quality?

If the answer is "YES" (and I hope you will not say YES without really meaning it), I am on deck to describe once again the problems in detail. But I will not repead this procedure with an anonymous support that doesn't help. Here I would wait for better ideas.

If the answer is "NO" or "no" or "I think so" or "perhaps", I'll say thank you and stop wasting my time.

@laurent 

Dear Laurent: My institution started using Maple TA with respect to the promised feature of LaTeX authoring.

In your first reply (April 11) to my post you told me a lot about alternative methods to edit questions which we do not use (as a LaTeX author, I find a question editor absolutely not interesting and editing a qu-File is also not funny).

So my last questions here are: How does Maple TA see the future of LaTeX Authoring? Will there be a maintenance process to eliminate bugs and improve quality? Or is LaTeX Authoring obsoloscent for you?

I would be very happy, if you could give me a clear answer to that point.

Thanks in advance

Mich.

@laurent 

Thanks a lot for your answer,

I am using LaTeX to write my lecture notes and I prefer this method also for writing math questions in Maple TA. Using the question Editor is no alternative as well as the Microsoft Formula Editor is no alternative to LaTeX. I think you can understand this.

The question Editor is also no alternative that could help with my complaints concerning point 1: The Maple TA rendering of math content is poor also if I use the question Editor. Just look at a \varphi or a \Phi as an example.

My support requests where transmitted via the Kaiserslautern University of Applied Sciences. This should help you to look for the requests.

Best regards

Mich.