Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!husc6!sri-unix!maslak
From: maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: Typography--Was Re: ventura
Message-ID: <32294@sri-unix.SRI.COM>
Date: 31 May 89 23:38:15 GMT
References: <32118@sri-unix.SRI.COM> <7650004@hpwrce.HP.COM>
Reply-To: maslak@unix.sri.com (Valerie Maslak)
Organization: SRI, Menlo Park, CA.
Lines: 69

In article <7650004@hpwrce.HP.COM> howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
>since most engineers see publications by the ton, which means they
>have gone through half the educational process for book design right
>there. On the other hand, you probably have not seen nearly as many
>circuit designs. That just means you haven't yet got the background
>in their field that they have in yours. It doesn't mean you couldn't
>learn.
Well, Howard, lemme tell you. I was married to a circuit designer,
one of the best, I might add, in the analog realm, and I've seen a
few circuits in my time.  But that, I think is really beside the
point. I've also seen a number of DaVincis and Picassos, and that
hasn't made me a painter. Mere exposure doesn't make an education.
I wasn't trying to make a point about circuit design being easier
or harder to learn than publishing. Why were you? See below.

>Of course, there is a lot more objectivity to circuit design than 
>there is to book design. I needed to learn all about components and
>manufacturing processes and materials to learn how to design a circuit,
>as well as how to lay out the drawings and present them for publication.

You've described several separate aspects of electrical engineering
practice here. Nothing says all aspects have to be performed by the
same person. In fact, final drawings will be done by a technician or
a draftsman, not the engineer, in many cases, yes?
And the technician, not the engineer, will do the breadboard.
And the production line will turn it into a product.
See what I mean? Learning something about a task doesn't make you
the person best suited to do it really well.

>But all I needed to learn to design a book were a few minor details
>about the limitations of the press and bindery, what fonts
>were available in what sizes and on which typesetting devices.
>The rest were subjective "I know what I like" kinds of art decisions.

Yes, well, you're giving a perfect example of what I've been talking
about. Many of those "art" decisions aren't subjective at all;
they're based on objective measures of readability and retention.
They're based on aesthetics, and graphic design principles,
not personal preference. Most of those principles are just as
objective, in their own way, as Maxwell's laws. From what you say,
you learned ZILCH about publication design, and you think you know
all you need to know.  So you're what I call a danger.  You're one
of the people who may be designing publications but probably shouldn't be.

>What I am saying, Valerie, is that your profession isn't a hard one
>for an engineer to learn. Most of us who use DTP have already learned
>it. Probably as well, or better, than most book designers. And I speak
>from experience on that, not just idle speculation.

You haven't learned it, based on what you say here. You've learned
enough to MAYBE be a production coordinator. Typical technical
arrogance.

Let me give an example. A company I won't name was about to put out
its first advertisement. Two-page spread in all the big journals.
The fonts were fine. And the pasteup was all straight. The
engineering types who were in charge saw no problem.
Their motto was "the gold standard." They
were going to print the ad on silver paper.

If you're an engineer, and you deal with publications, do your
clients a favor, will you, and sign up for a decent graphic design course?
U.C. Santa Cruz has an excellent extension program. Funny, I think if
I wanted to be a circuit designer, goddess forbid, I'd enroll in
some classes myself...



Valerie Maslak