Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq From: chuq@plaid.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop Subject: Re: Desktop Publishing Archive #2 Message-ID: <18099@sun.uucp> Date: Tue, 5-May-87 15:40:27 EDT Article-I.D.: sun.18099 Posted: Tue May 5 15:40:27 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 7-May-87 03:13:17 EDT Sender: news@sun.uucp Distribution: comp Lines: 126 Approved: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com Date: Mon, 4 May 87 10:27:12 pdt From: inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA I've been reading this group for quite a while now, and figured it had not much to offer me. Our publishing, which certainly originates at a desktop, doesn't all happen there. I too am working in a Technical Publications group, and we have little use for most of the DTP products out. The person who asked if anyone else works in a MilSpec environment where 10 Megabytes is about big enough for a section prompted this response. We are currently wrestling (as we have for the past 5 years or so) over how best to automate our page makeup process, which we currently are doing by way of illustrators hand massaging every page. Yes, that is the OLD way, and yes, it has inefficiencies, but no, putting a Mac on all our writer's desks will not fix things for us. If anything, it would compound our problems. We publish about 7,000 pages a year, and for our uses there are not many contenders. To satisfy our needs, a publishing system needs: -A snazzy editor that lets writers go anywhere in a big document instantly. (Big is 100 to 500 pages). The editor should be easy to learn and use, provide all the utilities writers have come to expect (e.g., spellchecker, global search and replace; editable, storable macros) -A lot of memory. We keep approximately half a million pages in archive, with about half of that on line. We need to share files large files with meticulous revision control. -Full WYSIWYG. No codes visible to the writer ever. When the document is code converted, codes should be able to be filtered out so revisions and corrections can be made. When they ARE in, codes should be human readable. -Ability to shove any file through a formatter that creates pages according to predefined page specifications. -Automatic numbering and reordering of any numbered item: lists, illustrations, tables. -Auto TOC, auto LOT, auto LOI, auto index. -Output to laser for review copies, to typesetter for finals. The typesetter should be able to output galley, plates, or film. In the context of a technical publications environment, damn few systems can cut the mustard, and micros never will. We are talking databases here, chums! Large volume production just can't be done by a "desk-top publishing" system. In fact, I submit that there is no such thing as DTP, or at least its a misnomer. I believe DTP systems are not really for publishing. Publication happens when a team consisting of a writer, editor, illustrator, technical reviewer, and a production staff create a large work for a large audience. When a single person sits down to his DTP system and cranks out a newsletter, no matter how efficiently, that person is not publishing! S/he is just using the right tool for a publication-like job. The question for me is what is the right tool for my kind of publishing. Thankfully, a few companies are meeting the needs of those of us who publish (according to my definition). Please see the Seybold Report, Vol 16, No 12 of March 2, 1987 for details. Xyvision: "layout-driven pagination suitable for areas such as magazine publishing". Texet: "handling structured documents rather than the broader needs of commercial typesetting...oriented almost exclusively toward corporate publishing and the milspec/aerospace markets, particularly where long documents are composed to a fixed layout. Interleaf: "sometimes added to the competition, generally when the application requires extensive graphics manipulation and fast composition speed, while not requiring sophisticated composition. Also has a significant price advantage in most configurations". Admittedly these are not DTP systems, with the possible exception of Interleaf. Still, I was glad to see someone else here talk about "real" publishing. A typical scenario goes like this: someone sees a new DTP product (Interleaf, Word 3.0, and Ventura are the latest of these), they like what it does, and become familiar enough with it to produce a little sheet that they think looks terrific. In producing it, they have become familiar with some of the decisions made regularly in "real" publishing, because on a micro level (*grin*) they have had to deal with them: dynamic running heads, offset pages for image shifting, figures and tables floating, sinking, or anchored to a first mention, gutter size, ladders and rivers, and so on. I disagree with the previous poster, who said they may even wrestle with ligatures, because I doubt most DTP types would know one if it came up behind them and smacked them up alongside the head! The favorite program probably never heard of a ligature either. Anyway, with this experience tucked under their belt, they feel qualified to tell me how I ought to get all my writers a with and really start cranking out the pages. But I take a look at the 3 to 12 page pamphlet or whatever, and see that it has of typos since it was never seen by anyone except the proud parent, it is in a format that was invented on the fly and looks it, usually has about 14 different fonts and sizes of type because they were there, and in general looks like a one-man show. But since they created it, they are absolutely blind to the poor job they have done! True publishing involves more than a desktop and a : it means that some sort of standards are going to be adhered to. Someone is going to edit the thing for adherence to those standards, for clear language, technical accuracy, presentation. There may be anywhere from 1 to a dozen or more reviewers! The failure of DTP is that in giving full control over publishing to one person, the person is never aware of the larger issue, in short, will this publication really meet anyone's needs, or am I the only one who thinks its beautiful? -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Gary Benson * John Fluke Mfg. Co. * PO Box C9090 * Everett WA * 98206 MS/232-E = = !fluke!inc = = (206)356-5367 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ascii is our god and unix is his profit-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- --------------------------------- Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM [I don't read flames] There is no statute of limitations on stupidity