|
Editorium Update 2008/09/11: Traditional vs. Electronic Workflow
|
The Editorium
|
Sep 11, 2008 10:47 PDT
|
Thanks for reading Editorium Update! The Editorium does not send
unsolicited email messages. You've received this newsletter because you
subscribed to it or a friend has forwarded it to you. To subscribe or
unsubscribe, see the instructions at the end of this message.
Editorium Update is published by the Editorium, which provides Microsoft
Word macros and other resources for publishing professionals. For more
information, visit us at http://www.editorium.com.
______________________________________________________
EDITORIUM UPDATE
Tips for Publishing Professionals Using Microsoft Word
September 11, 2008
______________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Feature Article: Traditional vs. Electronic Workflow
Readers Write: More on "Noli Turbare Commae Meos"
Resources:
Repair My Word
FreeRice
_____________________________________________________
WOW! It's a book! *My* book!
Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals: Power-Packed Tips for
Editors, Typesetters, Proofreaders, and Indexers, by Jack M. Lyon.
Now on sale at Amazon for $34.95!
http://tinyurl.com/6djk5r
7 by 10 inches, 632 pages, perfect bound--this baby is *huge* and just
packed with good stuff, nicely organized for easy reference. Please
check it out--and tell your friends. Please? Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
Let's get together! I'll be giving the keynote speech--and teaching a
four-hour workshop on working with Word--at Communication Central's
conference in Rochester, New York, on September 26 and 27. You can sign
up here:
http://www.communication-central.com/
I'd *love* to see you there!
_____________________________________________________
Traditional vs. Electronic Workflow
By Jack M. Lyon
In 1978 I started my publishing career, working as a proofreader at a
university press. For typesetting books, the press had one of the first
photocomposition machines, but such jobs as business cards and concert
programs were still done on a Linotype machine--a hulking mass of
machinery that resembled a giant typewriter keyboard hooked to the front
of a steam engine--arguably the most complex production of the
industrial age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotype_machine
Our publishing process looked like this:
1. The editor edited the paper manuscript.
2. The designer assigned the typesetting specs ("Heading: Garamond bold
24/32").
3. The Linotype operator, an old newspaperman called "Red," typed the
edited copy into his machine, which lined up a series of matrices, one
for each character, until the specified line width was reached. At that
point, the machine filled the matrices with molten lead, which cooled
into a "line o' type."
4. The pressman locked this and the other "slugs" from the machine into
a "form" on a press and "pulled" a galley proof, which I compared with
the original copy.
http://www.editorium.com/Scribe.gif
If I found a discrepancy between the copy and the proof, I marked the
proof and sent it back to Red for correction. He'd reset the line and
pull another proof. And the cycle continued until the proof was correct.
At that point, the job could be printed.
This was a tedious process that involved independent checks, balances,
and separation of powers, and it had to be followed step by step--no
fudging, even in the face of impending deadlines.
Then along came the personal computer, which changed everything--but not
all at once. In fact, publishers are still working out the
ramifications. Some of them include:
* No more paper manuscript. The editor works on-screen (typically in
Microsoft Word), using the electronic word-processing files provided by
the author.
* No more retyping the manuscript. Typesetting is done by "flowing" the
edited files into the typesetting software (usually QuarkXPress or
InDesign).
* No more proofreading the manuscript against the retyped version. In
fact, there *is* no paper manuscript to read against, and there *is* no
retyped version.
* No more locking type into a form. Pages spring fully composed from the
typesetting program, complete with running heads and folios.
What we see here is a dissolving of the traditional checks, balances,
and separation of powers, and a compression and confounding of the
traditional steps of production. We're also seeing the transition from
"hard" copy and paper proofs to a completely paperless workflow,
although most publishers aren't there yet. Why? Because (1) most
publishers haven't yet figured out what the new process should be, and
(2) software hasn't yet caught up with what is really needed.
The Process
What should the new process be? It depends on the software available,
but with current technology it looks something like this:
1. The author types the manuscript into a program that limits formatting
options to a narrow selection of specific paragraph and character
styles, such as "Chapter Title," "Body Text," "Subhead," and "Block
Quotation." (See my Author Tools Template for an example of how this can
be implemented in Microsoft Word:
http://www.editorium.com/ftp/authortools.zip.) Authors should not have
to worry about how their manuscript *looks* (which is going to change
completely at the publishing house) but should be confined to specifying
what the different parts of their manuscript *are.* ("This is a chapter
title." "This is a block quotation." And so on. In other words, at this
point the author is concerned exclusively with function rather than
form.) Naturally, this means educating your authors and providing
software that will help them do this.
2. The designer specifies what the different parts of the manuscript
should *look* like (for example, "Set any text styled as 'Chapter Title'
in 24-point Gill Sans bold").
3. The editor edits the author's electronic files, using a program that
provides macros, spell-checking, revision tracking, wildcard find and
replace, and other editorial tools. (Microsoft Word comes to mind.) The
editor then sends the files (not paper proofs) back to the author, who
reviews the editor's changes, accepting and rejecting those changes as
needed. There will probably be some back-and-forthing between author and
editor at this point.
4. The typesetter follows the designer's specifications to render the
edited files into type, using a typesetting program such as QuarkXPress
or InDesign. The result should be a PDF (a file in Adobe's Portable
Document Format, standard for the printing industry).
5. The proofreader and the author review the PDF on-screen to make sure
the typesetter followed the designer's specs and otherwise did a good
job. Proofreaders should check for bad word breaks, widows, and the
like. Changes should be marked in the PDF using Adobe Acrobat or another
program that provides PDF annotation tools (such as the free PDF-XChange
Viewer).
6. The typesetter makes the corrections marked in the PDF and produces a
new one.
7. The proofreader compares the new PDF with the old one on-screen to
make sure all corrections have been handled correctly.
8. Steps 6 and 7 are repeated as necessary.
9. The indexer writes the index, the editor edits the index, the
typesetter typesets the index, and the proofreader proofreads the index,
with correction cycles as needed, until the whole project is ready to go
to press.
The Software
Typically, authors write in Word, editors edit in Word, designers and
typesetters work in QuarkXPress or InDesign, and indexers work in SKY
Index, CINDEX, or MACREX. But what's really needed is *one* program that
can handle everything--including collaborative file sharing so that more
than one production stage can be done at the same time. If such a
program existed, the production process could look like this:
1. The designer creates a template with page, paragraph, and character
styles that will format the different parts of the manuscript.
2. Using the template, the author types the manuscript using the styles
created by the designer, switching back and forth between "draft view"
and "typeset view" as needed. NOTE: Because the styles are predefined by
the designer, the type is basically set automatically as the author
works.
3. The editor edits the files, switching back and forth between "draft
view" and "typeset view" as needed.
4. The author reviews the editor's changes. *At the same time,* the
indexer writes the index. As the indexer works, the entries are
automatically embedded into the files, and the index is automatically
generated and updated based on those entries.
5. A proofreader or typesetter checks for and fixes any remaining
widows, bad breaks, or other problems.
6. An editor reviews any editorial changes the proofreader may have made
and generally ensures that the book is ready for press.
This procedure needs refinement and adaptation for special
circumstances, but basically that's it. Notice that editing takes place
*after* the text is formatted, which means that the editor can see what
the type looks like and fix widows and bad breaks while editing--or
assign that to a proofreader. In addition, indexing can take place
*before* pagination is final, since the index will be generated (and
automatically updated) from index tags embedded in the text. Finally,
correction cycles have been eliminated. All of this means shorter
production schedules and higher quality than with traditional workflows.
In a perfect world, that is. Unfortunately, the program that will handle
all this has yet to be created. The combination of InDesign and InCopy
is on the right track, as is the combination of QuarkXPress and Quark
CopyDesk:
http://www.adobe.com/products/incopy/
http://www.quark.com/products/copydesk/
But neither combination handles indexing well, and neither combination
has all of the necessary editorial tools. An up-and-coming contender,
however, is MadCap Blaze (thank you, Keith Soltys), which I'll be
reviewing in the near future:
http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/blaze/
Using my WordSetter and DEXter add-ins, this whole procedure actually
can be done in Word alone for some books:
http://www.editorium.com/14000.htm
http://www.editorium.com/dexter.htm
But typesetting in Word is always problematic, and I eventually get
tired of using a screwdriver for a hammer.
Possible Problems
I realize that several objections could be raised to the procedure I've
outlined above, including:
* Not all authors will want to use a template while writing, and some
manuscripts will come in from who-knows-where. I understand the problem,
but I also think that many writers would welcome some kind of template
that just lets them *write* without worrying about formatting. I also
*know* that authors need help with structure and consistency, and most
Word processors encourage chaos, at least right out of the box.
* There's no work or review by a typesetter. Really good typography
requires a lot of hand-tweaking by a professional. But composition
software is getting better all the time; already, with a well-designed
template in InDesign, not much tweaking is needed. If you look at the
old books scanned by Google, you'll see that typography produced today
with virtually no manual intervention far surpasses much of what was
done completely by hand 100 years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/5nhhmx
For many books, the procedure I've outlined here could work well--if the
right software existed. In the meantime, we have to make do with hacks,
tricks, add-ins, and workarounds. Welcome to my world.
Your comments about any of this are welcome. Please send them here:
mailto:edi-@editorium.com
___________________________________________
READERS WRITE
In the previous newsletter, I wrote:
As an author, I say to any of my future editors, "Noli turbare commae
meos!" ("Don't disturb my commas!") (Ironically, I hope someone who
actually understands Latin will correct that if I have it wrong.)
Kathryn Krug responded:
Yes, there is a (Neo-)Latin word for a comma: comma, commatis (neu.). So
what you want is "commata mea" (neuter plural, accusative). My authority
is a 1967 Follett Latin Dictionary. I recommend it highly, as being
concise, with vocabulary useful up to the twentieth century. But alas,
the way I heard it, the authors fell into a copyright squabble, and the
book was never published again.
Alice Falk wrote:
Re the Latin: the word comma is borrowed from Latin, but it came into
Latin from Greek; so the Latin plural is commata; "my commas" would be
commata mea. But if you want to anyone to understand your point, you
might want to cheat and pretend that comma is a feminine noun, making
the accusative plural commas meas.
Many thanks to Kathryn and Alice! If you have questions, hints, or
comments you'd like to share, please send an email message here:
mailto:edi-@editorium.com
_____________________________________________________
RESOURCES
Repair My Word
http://www.repairmyword.com/
According to the website:
"Repair My Word is a data recovery program for Microsoft Word documents.
It is designed to recover text from damaged or corrupt Word files (.doc
files) that will not open normally. The recovered text can then be saved
as an error-free Microsoft Word document.
"Repair My Word is simple to use. Just open the corrupt Word file,
preview the recoverable text in the preview window and save this text to
a new error-free Word file."
The program is free to download and use. Whether it works for you or not
will probably depend on your situation, but it's probably worth a try.
____________________________________________________
Feed the hungry and test your vocabulary--everybody wins! My high score
is 50. What's yours?
http://www.freerice.org
If you'd like to share a resource that others might find useful:
mailto:resou-@editorium.com
____________________________________________________
HELP WANTED
If you need help with Word, there are actually lots of places to go.
Some of the best include:
Allen Wyatt's WordTips:
http://WordTips.VitalNews.com
The Word-PC List:
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/word-pc.html
The McEdit list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/McEdit/
Microsoft's Word discussion groups:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx#13
(Look in the lower right of the page.)
The Word MVP site:
http://word.mvps.org/
Woody's Lounge:
http://www.wopr.com/cgi-bin/w3t/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wrd
But if you can't find what you need in those places, send your question
here:
mailto:he-@editorium.com
I'll put your question in the newsletter to see if some astute reader
knows the answer.
_____________________________________________________
I *love* SpamArrest. After unsuccessfully trying to fight the battle
against junk email with a couple of top-notch programs, I decided to try
SpamArrest, and I'm thrilled to say it's actually won the war. Boy, has
my email been quiet! When people send me an email message, they receive
a message in return asking them to click a link to register themselves
(a one-time operation) as someone who can send me email. Spammers, of
course, won't bother to do this, which basically means no more spam!
It's easy to preregister family, friends, associates, and email
newsletters. The online program (no software installed on your computer)
provides complete control over how spam is handled, and it's very easy
to use. You can try SpamArrest for 30 days at no charge. To learn more,
click here:
http://spamarrest.com/affl?1403707
And if you decide to sign up, please do so through that affiliate link.
Your support will help keep Editorium Update alive and kicking. Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
TELL A FRIEND ABOUT EDITORIUM UPDATE
Thanks for subscribing to Editorium Update. We publish the newsletter
free of charge, asking only that you forward it to friends and
associates who might find it useful. (Please get their approval before
you send it.) We'd also appreciate your suggestions for newsletter
articles and improvements. Please email your comments here:
mailto:edi-@editorium.com.
You can read past issues of the newsletter here:
http://www.editorium.com/euindex.htm
_____________________________________________________
THE FINE PRINT
Editorium Update (ISSN 1534-1283) is published by:
The EDITORIUM, LLC
Microsoft Word Add-Ins for Publishing Professionals
http://www.editorium.com
Copyright © 2008 by the Editorium. All rights reserved. Editorium Update
and Editorium are trademarks of the Editorium.
You may manually forward Editorium Update in its entirety to others (but
not charge for it) and print or store it for your own use. Any other
broadcast, publication, retransmission, copying, or storage, without
written permission from the Editorium, is strictly prohibited. If you're
interested in reprinting one of our articles, please send an email
message here: mailto:repr-@editorium.com
Editorium Update is provided for informational purposes only and without
a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not
limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, and freedom from infringement. The user assumes the
entire risk as to the accuracy and use of this document.
The Editorium is not affiliated with Microsoft Corporation.
_____________________________________________________
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE OR UNSUBSCRIBE
If you haven't subscribed to Editorium Update but would like to, send a
blank email message here: mailto:editorium--@topica.com.
To unsubscribe, send a blank email message here:
mailto:editorium-u-@topica.com.
We do not sell, rent, or give our subscriber list to anyone.
____________________________________________________
|
|
 |
|
