Unfortunately my advisor doesn't do LaTeX so it kind of sucked for collaboration.
With my adviser and collaborators, I ended up compiling PDFs, printing them, and then they would mark them up by hand because that was fastest. It was not ideal by any stretch.
Word has it's faults (cough figure placement and cross-references), but track changes and adding comments to the manuscript is just spot on and easy. Getting comments and revisions done in Word is just an order of magnitude easier, and just leaves me at the end to make sure all the figures are positioned properly with captions. And now that Word finally seems to have gotten Styles and sections working properly (so many horrible disasters with this in previous iterations) it's pretty workable for technical documents.
Even the equation editor now very nearly straight up accepts latex markup for the math to the point where it's good enough for all but heavy theory papers.
But with LaTeX, asking your busy adviser to look at the compiled output, and then mark up a separate file they have to parse in their head to comment on is just too much effort.
However, latex is extremely good at flowing text while applying good style guidelines. Most of the time you know that extending a paragraph by a line won't make anything bad happen - no titles left at the bottom of a page, acceptable stretch of line spacing, and things like that. Of course you can only push this so far before you have to fiddle about moving figures to the right page, etc. This is probably unavoidable, although it would be better to have a bit more direct control over where floats end up. The key thing is that latex does mostly get the small stuff right, so you're not constantly yelling at your collaborators for breaking anything.
Though it's true that it's not enforced.
On the web, that content and presentation are separate, that's a technically a possibility, and culturally an actuality. That is, while you have the technical tools to apply such a separation, the toolkit does not force it on you; you can choose to write html with in-place defined colors and font sizes and other style elements. That the standards are higher than that and one is expected to write clean structural HTML and specify style separately with CSS is just a cultural phenomenon.
In the LaTeX world (scientific community), separation of content and presentation is also technically feasible, but the culture that maintains it as standard is missing. Most LaTeX documents are written by scientists who just want the damn thing look as they prefer, and apply all nasty tricks that the system can offer to get at there. The more computer savvy ones engage macro writing to save them a few keystrokes, but that's far from a way of document authoring that keeps content and presentation separate.
Anyway, my point is that in the weeks/months of writing a paper, the messy mixup of content and presentation really only becomes relevant in the last two hours before the submission deadline. Up until that point, everyone is mostly using the same subset of latex, not worrying too much about the presentation part, because the coarse-grain paper layout is usually handled by the style sheet you get from the conference.