Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: Typography--Was Re: ventura
Message-ID: <31774@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 27 May 89 00:04:57 GMT
References: <32118@sri-unix.SRI.COM> <34400002@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 59

>However, as a
>former textbook typesetter, I've seen some pretty UGLY specs generated
>by your "professional designers".  I have a hard time believing that
>I could do worse than some of them.

Definitely. Design/layout isn't an exact science. Sometimes people screw up.
Sometimes editors overrule the designers. Sometimes someone changes things
at the last minute. 

A common thing in publishing is for an editor to tell the designer how many
signatures the book will use. This limits the number of pages that can be
printed, and if the manuscript doesn't fit, the designer gets to wedge it
in. Or you run four pages over in a 16 page signature -- forcing the
designer to either close things up to make room or use filler material in
the back.

Sometimes, you just screw up. I just got back new business cards today that
I designed. They're ugly. Some of that is because the printer
(Alphagraphics, whome I will *not* go back to) did a half-ass repro job --
and on top of that, decided to do some cutting and pasting, even though they
had camera ready art. They did *that* so poorly that I have a batch of
business cards that have my name on it and my wife's e-mail address. You
figure out how they could screw up that badly. (Needless, there were
adjustments made to the cost, but I won't touch them again for anything).

At the same time, however, I find I made some design decisions that I
thought would work and didn't. They're ugly -- even if they'd been reproed
properly they'd be ugly. So even though I thought I knew what I was doing,
when I was done, I found I was wrong. 

That's life. Fortunately, it'll be easy to fix the cards and print new
batches. (I think). Sometimes, you don't get the opportunity to re-run the
job.

>Knowing what makes a good design
>or a good computer program is as much (if not more) a matter of
>experience as education.  I'm guessing you don't try to design circuits
>or write programs because you've never taken an interest in it.  So
>why knock those people taking an interest in your profession just for their
>lack of experience.

True. But there are a lot of people out there who seem to think they can
read the PageMaker manual and they're desktop publishers. There's a fairly
hefty learning curve out there. I don't laugh at the folks who are at the
low end of the learning curve -- I was there a few years back myself. I
laugh at the folks who don't want to believe a learning curve exists. I've
seen too many ludicrous documents to do otherwise.

Desktop publishing isn't a panacea. It's a tool. Use the tool, and you can
save yourself a lot of grief. Abuse it, and you relearn the realities of
Garbage In, Garbage Out.


Chuq Von Rospach      =|=     Editor,OtherRealms     =|=     Member SFWA/ASFA
         chuq@apple.com   =|=  CI$: 73317,635  =|=  AppleLink: CHUQ
      [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]

This is....The Voice....of USENET....in special English. 1300UTC on 11525.