readers needed for draft of Word typography book

[Aaron Shepard]

I'm at work on the second edition of "Books, Typography, and Microsoft
Word" -- a full-size paperback this time, not an ebook -- and I could
use the expertise of this newsgroup.

As available, I'm posting preliminary, unformatted drafts of the
chapters on my Web site as PDF files. I welcome your downloading and
reading the chapters and sending me comments, criticisms, and
corrections. Here's the address:

http://www.aaronshep.com/publishing/books/WordType.html

The chapters will be

1. Why Not Word?
2. Optimizing Word
3. Using Styles and Templates
4. Laying Out Your Pages
5. Typesetting Your Text
6. Handling Graphics
7. Dealing with Details
8. Preparing for Print
9. Creating a Cover

I've just posted the first two chapters, and they're ready for
download. I'll post the remaining ones over the next week or so, and
tell the newsgroup as I do. Since I'm trying to get out the book in
January, the sooner I receive your comments the better.

Thanks!

Aaron

 

[Elliott Roper]

I'm at work on the second edition of "Books, Typography, and Microsoft
Word" -- a full-size paperback this time, not an ebook -- and I could
use the expertise of this newsgroup.

As available, I'm posting preliminary, unformatted drafts of the
chapters on my Web site as PDF files. I welcome your downloading and
reading the chapters and sending me comments, criticisms, and
corrections. Here's the address:

http://www.aaronshep.com/publishing/books/WordType.html

The chapters will be

1. Why Not Word?
2. Optimizing Word
3. Using Styles and Templates
4. Laying Out Your Pages
5. Typesetting Your Text
6. Handling Graphics
7. Dealing with Details
8. Preparing for Print
9. Creating a Cover

I've just posted the first two chapters, and they're ready for
download. I'll post the remaining ones over the next week or so, and
tell the newsgroup as I do. Since I'm trying to get out the book in
January, the sooner I receive your comments the better.

If you are writing a book on typography, you gotta put your money where
your mouth is. How could one comment on a typography document with such
junior league typography? Compare your effort with the way Adobe sells
CS2. Or better yet, the way they sell their fonts. What you show here
is typing, not typography.

Chapter 1 is pure arm waving waffle. Anybody could fill another 20
pages on "Why not Word" with damn good argument why not.
Your whole premise is bollocks. Word can't place text, it routinely
screws illustrations. You gotta sacrifice a chicken to get it to
display a ligature. Hanging punctuation is impossible. Optical kerning?
Dont make me laugh. Can it balance columns? Can it heck!.

Word is a word processor. Bloated and all it may be. Its job is to make
Microsoft money. Its target audience is any individual or business that
needs to have untold numbers of unskilled people produce and consume
any kind of document, good or bad. The aim is quantity, not quality. It
was never designed to do typography. You are in fish on a bicycle
territory.

Type the text in Word and hand it over to CS2. If someone is spending
all the time and effort to write a book, and thinks they are England's
answer to Alasdair Gray, a professional layout program that only costs
a few quid more than Office is chump change.

Chapter 2 is all over the place. Get some structure into the line of
argument. If you have random bullet point suggestions, be honest with
your reader. If good typography is about anything at all, it is about
reinforcing the message the words convey.

Weren't you here a couple of years ago flogging test pages purporting
to show Word could do typography and proving the opposite?

Nice try. No cigar.

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Aaron:

Well, I won't be quite as hard on you as Elliott. Then again, I don't know
as much about typography as Elliott

I, like yourself, publish books directly from Word. Good typography and
page design is as possible in Word as it is in any other program. And I
agree with you: long documents are probably better handled in Word than they
are in a page-layout program. Word will deal efficiently with text in much
higher volumes than many page layout programs are designed for.

However, I would suggest that you are under-valuing your audience. An
audience that wants to learn typography in Word would, I believe, be looking
for more information at greater depth and with more explanation.

There are some statements you make in chapter 2 that I would quibble with: I
believe you are making some errors of fact there. For example:

* I would specifically recommend PC Word 2000 and Word 2003. Word 97 and
Word 2002 are too bug-ridden and unstable for serious production work

* I believe your whole Optimising for Speed section needs to be re-written.
The real speed-hogs are embedded pictures, Live Word Count, and Page Layout
View. The other items you mention have a negligible effect on speed,
although misuse of them can corrupt the document and make the whole thing
slow.

* In Chapter 2, you frequently make statements with no qualification or
explanation. This lack of detail detracts from what would otherwise be an
important piece of information. For example, you say Word needs plenty of
memory, but you don't say how much (512 MB for long document work).

* You mention reducing graphics resolution, but you don't explain what this
is, how to do it, or how to determine what the resolution should be. Anyone
can say "Make it better", our job is to tell the user HOW

* Goodness knows why you are telling your users to turn off background
saves? You should say why if you really want them to turn it off. I don't
see what effect that would have on stability. But it will certainly slow
the user down, and you don't mention that.

* If you are going to mention AutoRecover, you should explain to the user
what it actually does, how it operates, and why they should not rely on it
for backup.

* I wouldn't be quite so over-confident about Mac viruses I would
agree that you could characterise the threat from viruses on the Mac as
lower than it is on the PC. However, in the interests of delivering
responsible advice to people who don't know that, you should probably also
mention that if they get one, they may indeed loose every file on their
system, and quite possibly, their backup as well. And that if they operate
without a regularly-updated antivirus, at some point in the life of their
system, they almost certainly will get one. I think it is fine to tell
people they can cut corners, but I consider it irresponsible not to advise
them of the risks so they are fully informed

* I happen to agree with you about Master Documents However, I believe
that you should mention that they will be fine in Office 12 if the user
users the .docx file format.

* On the other hand, any document large enough to be looking for a
typography solution is likely to also require tracked changes, nested
tables, and list numbering and bullets. Again, I believe that what you say
in that section is so brief I would actually consider it to be technically
inaccurate.

* Similarly "Customising your Workspace". Either tell them what to do and
how to do it, or take that section out.

* I suggest that you revisit "Choosing your Views". Your text makes it
appear that you do not actually understand the subject. Choosing between
the views may be "mostly" a matter of preference -- tell us when it isn't,
and why. You have a typo when you say Page Preview, either Print Preview or
Page Layout View.

* You say Print Preview is not always perfect: in a book on typography, you
need to specify at which times it is not!! And how!!

* If you're going to mention Document Map, mention that it doesn't exist on
the Mac, and say HOW it changes your formatting and why.

* Showing Invisibles should be "Showing non-Printing Characters" -- use the
term Word uses.

* Controlling Automatic Changes is a big-ticket hot-seller in books on
using Word for complex document production. Your current section is a
reasonable "outline" of what should be there. You need to tell this
audience in explicit detail specifically what to enable or disable, and HOW.
I would disagree with your advice to turn off Smart Selection. When editing
text as opposed to code, it's easier to work with it on. Similarly, turning
off "Automatically include paragraph mark" is safer ON than off for users
who habitually run with the paragraph marks hidden.

* I disagree with your advice to turn off "Use printer metrics". Word will
repaginate every time the printer changes anyway, but if you don't use
printer metrics, the user won't be able to see the precise effect. Word
will use the printer metrics at print time, and what they get won't be the
same as what they saw on screen.

I guess I also agree with Elliott that Chapter 1 needs a re-angle. Rather
than "Why Not Word?" how about "Why Use Word?" There are good reasons why I
use Word for typography: the cost of Adobe CS2 is not one of them

Rather than be curmudgeonly like I usually am, allow me to suggest that the
book you are proposing to write is a good idea. It is needed. Users do ask
for such a book. But you're not writing the book they're asking for. Not
yet. Currently your book is shaping up to be simplistic and trite. It will
annoy its target reader, and cause a wave of vocal negative publicity that
will destroy your sales.

I think you're onto a good idea. Now you need to put the work in. You need
to put the Information in.

Hope this helps

I'm at work on the second edition of "Books, Typography, and Microsoft
Word" -- a full-size paperback this time, not an ebook -- and I could
use the expertise of this newsgroup.

As available, I'm posting preliminary, unformatted drafts of the
chapters on my Web site as PDF files. I welcome your downloading and
reading the chapters and sending me comments, criticisms, and
corrections. Here's the address:

http://www.aaronshep.com/publishing/books/WordType.html

The chapters will be

1. Why Not Word?
2. Optimizing Word
3. Using Styles and Templates
4. Laying Out Your Pages
5. Typesetting Your Text
6. Handling Graphics
7. Dealing with Details
8. Preparing for Print
9. Creating a Cover

I've just posted the first two chapters, and they're ready for
download. I'll post the remaining ones over the next week or so, and
tell the newsgroup as I do. Since I'm trying to get out the book in
January, the sooner I receive your comments the better.

Thanks!

Aaron

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

The real speed-hogs are embedded pictures, Live Word Count

Live Word Count I believe is only on the Mac.

* If you're going to mention Document Map, mention that it doesn't exist on
the Mac, and say HOW it changes your formatting and why.

The Document Map does exist on the Mac. In Word 2004, it is one of two
options under the Navigation Pane, but not gone.

* Showing Invisibles should be "Showing non-Printing Characters" -- use the
term Word uses.

WinWord 2000 apparently started using "formatting marks", as least in Tools
| Options. Who knows if they updated the Help.

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Daiya:

Thanks...

Live Word Count I believe is only on the Mac.

Nope: It's there on the PC too, but you have to dig for it.

The Document Map does exist on the Mac. In Word 2004, it is one of two
options under the Navigation Pane, but not gone.

Bloody hell... I never would have found it there. Whatever happened to
"Discoverable user interfaces"??

WinWord 2000 apparently started using "formatting marks", as least in Tools
| Options. Who knows if they updated the Help.

AFAIK it's back to "Non-printing Characters"

Cheers
--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Aaron Shepard]

If you are writing a book on typography, you gotta put your money where
your mouth is. How could one comment on a typography document with such
junior league typography? Compare your effort with the way Adobe sells
CS2. Or better yet, the way they sell their fonts. What you show here
is typing, not typography.

Elliot, thanks for your comments, but you apparently missed the note
saying that these chapters are UNFORMATTED DRAFTS. In fact, I purposely
degraded the typography so no one would take them as an example of what
Word can do. Apparently I was not blatant enough.

In the small-publishers community, my ebook "Books, Typography, and
Microsoft Word" has been called an example of the finest typography
Word can produce. With the typographic refinements of Word 2004, my
paperback will be even better.

Aaron

 

[Aaron Shepard]

Thanks for your comments, John. I apologize for not replying sooner. I
had expected replies to be sent to me directly, and I've only this
morning discovered all the replies posted here.

However, I would suggest that you are under-valuing your audience. An

audience that wants to learn typography in Word would, I believe, be looking
for more information at greater depth and with more explanation.

My audience is primarily new self publishers, and frankly, they don't
want to be overwhelmed with detail. I'm purposely keeping the book
sketchy so as not to put them off before they can get through it. My
thinking is that even a few key tips will greatly improve the work of
most newbies.

* Goodness knows why you are telling your users to turn off background
saves? You should say why if you really want them to turn it off. I don't
see what effect that would have on stability. But it will certainly slow
the user down, and you don't mention that.

I should probably say this is not a problem in OS X. On OS 9 or
Windows, you're always running a risk by doing more than one thing on
the computer at a time. And saving even a large file doesn't take more
than a second or two.

* If you are going to mention AutoRecover, you should explain to the user
what it actually does, how it operates, and why they should not rely on it
for backup.

* I wouldn't be quite so over-confident about Mac viruses I would
agree that you could characterise the threat from viruses on the Mac as
lower than it is on the PC.

Word has built-in macro virus protection. At the same time, leading Mac
antivirus programs are known to be poorly programmed and cause serious
system troubles. They're probably worse than most viruses they would
guard against.

* I happen to agree with you about Master Documents However, I believe
that you should mention that they will be fine in Office 12 if the user
users the .docx file format.

Maybe! We'll have to see, won't we?

* I disagree with your advice to turn off "Use printer metrics". Word will
repaginate every time the printer changes anyway, but if you don't use
printer metrics, the user won't be able to see the precise effect. Word
will use the printer metrics at print time, and what they get won't be the
same as what they saw on screen.

It doesn't act that way on my Mac. Is that a Windows thing? With that
choice off, it prints as I see it on screen, in terms of line breaks.
Word controls the line breaks based on the chosen user fonts, rather
than letting the printer adjust them according to built-in fonts.

Rather than be curmudgeonly like I usually am, allow me to suggest that the
book you are proposing to write is a good idea. It is needed. Users do ask
for such a book. But you're not writing the book they're asking for. Not
yet. Currently your book is shaping up to be simplistic and trite. It will
annoy its target reader, and cause a wave of vocal negative publicity that
will destroy your sales.

Obviously, you wouldn't be the right audience. But my earlier ebook,
which is much briefer and sketchier, is selling well on Amazon and is
highly regarded among small publishers.

Anyway, I will look over your comments in detail. It looks like there
are some very helpful ones. I appreciate them, and I hope you keep
reading.

Aaron

 

[Aaron Shepard]

* I disagree with your advice to turn off "Use printer metrics". Word will
repaginate every time the printer changes anyway, but if you don't use
printer metrics, the user won't be able to see the precise effect. Word
will use the printer metrics at print time, and what they get won't be the
same as what they saw on screen.

From Microsoft's online documentation "Description of the Compatibility
Options that are available in the Options dialog box in Word 2003, Word
2002, and Word 2000":

"Use printer metrics to lay out document: If this option is selected,
Word uses the information from the printer driver that is installed, as
in some earlier versions of Word. If this option is turned off
(default), Word uses built-in metrics to lay out the document. This
means your document looks the same, no matter what printer driver is
installed."

Word's default behavior since at least Word 97-98 has been NOT to
reformat according to your specific printer. But many long-time Word
users still haven't caught on, because they're using old templates that
have this outdated option still checked in their Compatibility Options,
and this is transferred to all new documents based on those templates.

This is one of the reasons I now advise Word users to clear all (or
nearly all) Compatibility Options from their templates whenever they
move to a new Word version. Otherwise, you're laboring under less
desirable legacy behavior -- in this case, about a decade old!

Aaron

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Aaron:

Thanks mate -- I know what it is, and I know what it does. I was here when
they brought that option IN

Personally, I don't want my documents to look "the same, no matter what
printer driver is installed."

I would like MY documents to look exactly as they will when they print.

So: I leave the option ON.

Cheers

From Microsoft's online documentation "Description of the Compatibility
Options that are available in the Options dialog box in Word 2003, Word
2002, and Word 2000":

"Use printer metrics to lay out document: If this option is selected,
Word uses the information from the printer driver that is installed, as
in some earlier versions of Word. If this option is turned off
(default), Word uses built-in metrics to lay out the document. This
means your document looks the same, no matter what printer driver is
installed."

Word's default behavior since at least Word 97-98 has been NOT to
reformat according to your specific printer. But many long-time Word
users still haven't caught on, because they're using old templates that
have this outdated option still checked in their Compatibility Options,
and this is transferred to all new documents based on those templates.

This is one of the reasons I now advise Word users to clear all (or
nearly all) Compatibility Options from their templates whenever they
move to a new Word version. Otherwise, you're laboring under less
desirable legacy behavior -- in this case, about a decade old!

Aaron

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Aaron Shepard]

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding me, John. I'm saying the document
will _print_ the same, no matter what printer or printer driver you're
using. That's how it tests on my Mac. With this option off, I haven't
had a printing reflow problem in over a decade. Word controls the
layout in the printer, rather than letting the printer do it itself.

Of course, this would not work if the document is then printed on a
version of Word with the older behavior. It would also not work if a
computer prints it with different fonts. But that's not a problem for
me, because I never send a printer anything but a PDF with embedded
fonts.

Aaron