Taking Sides: Word vs. Google Docs (and others)

Great photo by Andrea Piacquadio.

Collaboration is the hot buzzword these days, when it comes to creating documents. Put your doc in the cloud! Let everyone offer input, in real time! The latest technology makes it possible! 
 
Isn’t that great? 
 
Not so fast. 
 
In this article, we’re going to weigh in on what you might not have considered a contentious topic. It’s not just “Word vs. Google Docs,” as the title of this article has implied. It’s more about “synchronous vs. asynchronous.” More importantly, it’s about creativity vs. chaos. 
 
Back in the old days
 
We feel impelled to set up this story properly. Not very long ago, if you wanted to write something, you fired up Microsoft Word, and you wrote. When you were done, you had a document—a .doc, or later, a .docx—that contained your efforts, and was easy to share. 
 
It wasn’t just Word. There are a zillion other word processors out there, whose features are largely similar. You open them. You use them to write. You end up with a little document file when you’re done. We’ll lump all of these other apps together with Word—the 800-pound gorilla here—since they all operate in basically the same way. 
 
Working in this old-school manner, and knowing, in the business world, that documents are subject to input and revisions, it has always been incumbent on you to handle version control. 
 
That is, you wouldn’t take the doc you’d labored over, and then, while on the phone with your client, simply make all the changes that they suggest, into that original doc. Of course not. What would you do instead? 
 
Before taking down any of the client feedback, you’d do a “Save as...” and create a copy of your document, likely ending its filename with “v2” or something like that. 
 
We’re not losing you on any of this, are we? This certainly isn’t rocket science. 
 
But we’re describing this in detail to set up a point we’re going to make. 
 
Fast forward
 
Google Docs is also like Word, in that, nowadays, there are lots of online/cloud-based word processors that act just like Google Docs. But like Word, Google Docs is the 800-pound gorilla in this space, so we’ll use it as our example here, representing all apps of its ilk. 
 
At first blush, Google Docs is identical to Word. It’s an app (web-based, vs. on-your-computer-based). You open it. You create a new document. And you save it to your Google Drive. 
 
So far, virtually no difference. 
 
But then things change. Since not only Google Docs but the documents you create with it are hosted in the cloud, it’s technically very simple to make documents share-able. Heck, you don’t even have to email them anymore. (Way too much work!) All you need to do is to grant someone else permission to edit your doc, and they can launch their Google Docs, open up your document, and make changes. 
 
So your client can type notes to you right in your doc. Or make their suggested changes, right in your doc. This can even happen while you’re working on it. In other words, you can actually have several people making changes to the same document, at the exact same time.
 
And now, this is nothing like opening Word on your computer and sitting at your screen like a writer. 
 
It’s more like sitting in a committee meeting. Or maybe it’s more like a kids’ soccer game, with all the kids, of both teams, crowded chaotically around the ball. 
 
What’s better? (Or worse?)  
 
“Granting permission” is not some technological breakthrough. It’s been around for as long as there have been computer files. But the notion of making this available for a document that can be revised by multiple people in real time (“synchronous” editing) is relatively new: it coincides with the rise of cloud computing and storage. 
 
You can make a lot of arguments for how great this new technology is. You could say that it eliminates the laborious emailing of documents. It ensures a “single source of truth,” since the very latest version of the document is all that anyone sees. It makes sure that no one is working on an outdated version. And plus it creates unprecedented transparency: Everyone can see what everyone else is doing, in real time. Surely you’ve seen this: A little circle with someone else’s initials in it, showing them selecting text, or adding new verbiage, or whatever, like a multi-player online game. 
 
Now the big question: Does this make the document better?
 
Follow-on question: Is this process better? 
 
We’d argue that the answer to both of these questions is “No.”
 
Writing a document is not a democratic exercise. You’ll hear about a document’s “voice”—not its “crowd.” A good document has structure and logic. If various people are all tinkering with different parts of it at once, the final product will collapse like a house of cards. 
 
And what about all those worthless outdated versions that are now history? Well surprise: They’re not worthless. More often than not, you want to look at Version 2 when you’re working on Version 4, to see what was there before it changed: Not all movement is forward, and not all change is progress. 
 
Yes, there is a degree of “version tracking” baked into these web-based word processors. But it doesn’t offer the control or granularity of the iconic “Save as...” command. 
 
And not to sound too pretentious, but how many hands does it take to hold a paintbrush? We’d prefer to get client feedback on a doc, interpret it to the needs of the doc, and then implement it carefully, rather than seeing an anonymously-named editor (“Wombat,” anyone?) arbitrarily adding and cutting. 
 
What are your thoughts on this topic? Do you agree with us? Want to try and convince us otherwise? Contact us. We’d love to hear from you. 

---