diff options
author | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
---|---|---|
committer | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
commit | e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch) | |
tree | 60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex |
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex | 290 |
1 files changed, 290 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..cd23f2cfd7 --- /dev/null +++ b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex @@ -0,0 +1,290 @@ +\title[Book and Journal Production]{Report on `Book and Journal Production'} +\author[Carol Hewlett]{Carol Hewlett\\London School of Economics} + +\begin{article} + +\def\heading#1#2{\subsection*{#1\\\normalsize\bf#2}} + +The first meeting of the UK \TeX\ Users' Group of 1992 was held at the +School of Oriental and African Studies, London, on Tuesday 11 February +1992. The subject for the day was `Book and Journal Production' which +attracted a large audience including overseas visitors from as far away +as Belfast! + +\heading{Rod~Mulvey}{Printing House, Cambridge University Press} + +Rod~Mulvey assumed that the audience was +familiar with \TeX\ and \LaTeX, +and aimed his talk at publishers, with the following topics: +\begin{enumerate} +\item What type of \TeX\ files should the authors submit +\item How should the \TeX\ files be submitted +\item What agreements should there be with authors +\item Checks to judge if \TeX\ files will work +\item How to convert files to {\it your} design +\item Sub-editing +\item Artwork. +\end{enumerate} +After the receipt of the author's +initial manuscript there needed to be a \TeX\ check and a report and +at the same time the work should be checked by the sub-editor who would +prepare a marked copy. The next step was to determine the final method of +production and the costs. Following that, and assuming \TeX\ was to be +used, the \TeX\ manuscript would be edited and the artwork prepared +separately. The artwork would be pasted in to the pages output +from \TeX\ to make up the pages and this, subject to late corrections, +made up the camera-ready copy. + +The journal production cycle was similar, except that before the manuscript +reached the production stage it would have been refereed and passed by the +journal editor. If the journal was using \TeX\ or \LaTeX\ then any +typescripts would have to be re-keyed. + +Rod then enumerated the kinds of \TeX\ input that an author might submit: +it could be at the initial stage, before any pre-subediting had been done; +it could be at the stage where only re-design and final corrections were +needed; it could include the publisher's design and just need final +corrections and an index -- or it could be a {\tt dvi} file (CRC on disk), +or even the camera-ready copy itself. + +What the author should submit depended partly on which of these stages +of \TeX\ input was involved. If \TeX\ source files were being submitted, +than all author-defined macros must be included. If the author were +submitting {\tt dvi} files then a paper copy must also be sent, as there +could be problems printing from a {\tt dvi} file if non-\TeX\ fonts had been +used. So it was essential for the author to send proper documentation +of what was being submitted, to include a list of all input files and +macros used and full details of any unusual fonts required. + +Authors might submit their work on disks or magnetic tapes, or by +electronic mail. Some problems with electronic mail were the possibility +of the files becoming corrupted and the chance of the printing house +mislaying them because the files were not expected or not identified. +Even disks and tapes did not always contain what they were supposed to! + +Rod pointed out that a lot of work may be needed to convert author's +\TeX\ to printer's \TeX, and gave some examples. + +It was necessary for subeditors to understand \TeX -- he showed an +example of unnecessary subediting for a \TeX\ manuscript. He referred +to an article in {\it Learned Publishing}, volume 4, number 9, 1991 +by R~J~Skaer on subediting for \TeX\ manuscripts. + +Authors tended to use too wide a measure for their text; +in \LaTeX, this could be changed very easily although an automatic change +could also make problems, particularly with mathematical formulae. + +Rod favoured making style files or macros available to intending authors +so that the work was in the right format from the start. This does imply +the existence of suitable style files and macros. It was worth designing +them for journals and standard monographs and for long books --- over +300 pages. For shorter, one-off books designing a style file could cost as +much as conventional typesetting, although if the style file were then used +from the beginning it would be worth it. + +One particular problem that Rod had encountered was the use of Times font +for setting maths. CUP had licensed a \TeX\ simulation of Times for +authors to use. The increased use of PostScript fonts will help get round +this kind of problem. + +Artwork was often a problem for publishers. Typically, artwork would +be done by a drawing office and pasted in. Now authors could include +some artwork with a \TeX\ file: if this were the case, then it was +again essential that the author provided any macros used. + +A major weakness of \TeX\ was that was not an automatic typesetting +program. This was particularly true with respect to floats. There was +no interactive page make up with current \TeX , and this was an area +that he would particularly wish to see improved. + +Rod then discussed the question of who does the work with \TeX\ +manuscripts. It could be some or all of the author, the typesetter, +the subeditor the academic editor/institution and the publishing +house. It was important to make an agreement with the author covering +these issues and to establish a policy with respect to electronic text +regarding subediting and correction. He recommended setting up +standard designs in \LaTeX\ and \TeX. + + +\heading{Geeti~Granger}{John~Wiley \& Sons Ltd} + +Books produced by Wiley are generally +scientific in subject and that their markets cover UK, Europe, +Middle East, Africa and Japan. They produce about 185 new books each +year and over 600 journal issues, together amounting to some 130,000 +pages. Geeti's section was established in 1984 initially to process +disks, but with a set of objectives which included building a +digital archive of the books produced and moving towards true +`demand printing'. A new set of objectives had been established in 1989; +these were: +\begin{enumerate} +\item To develop technical expertise with a view to enhancing John~Wiley's +competitive position in the long term. +\item To assist in the most competitive market of all, that for the best +authors. +\item To offer an increasing level of support to their authors. +\item To prepare for major changes in technology. +\item To open the possibility of genuine on-demand printing. +\end{enumerate} +Geeti's department used Sun systems running Unix, PCs running MS-DOS and +Apple Macintosh machines, linked with LocalTalk and ethernet networks. +Various peripherals were linked in, including a scanner, cassette +tape drive and a number of LaserWriters. + +Various items of software were used: all the machines ran \TeX\ of +some flavour and this, together with Ventura Publisher occupied +6 members of staff. \TeX\ was used for the books and journals, with Ventura +Publisher being used for some in-house material. +Other standard software for DTP, drawing and +translation was available and this was covered by another member of +staff and a technical support person. All the output was PostScript. + +In a typical year, Geeti's department was responsible for about 25 new books, +six complete journal issues plus several individual papers and +about 1000 pages of large indexes made for `non-disk' books. + +The book production cycle at John~Wiley was as follows: +To begin with, the author submitted a test disk and hard copy. +The next stage was a transmittal meeting from the editorial side to the +production side. A standard schedule was used for disk based manuscripts. +Copy editing and artwork preparation were both done by free-lance +people. Then followed page proofs, author's corrections and +camera-ready copy. Geeti said that they imposed no restrictions on the +kind of disks supplied --- provided they were readable and contained what +they were supposed to. As far as \TeX\ was concerned, six standard styles +had been developed, but the macros still needed to be tweaked. Page +balancing in \TeX\ was done by hand at the last stage. + +Geeti identified some of the problems with disks: authors still make +mistakes. They did not always take enough care to distinguish between +1 and l, O and 0. The hard copy supplied was not always the same as the +text on the disk. Authors tended to be inconsistent and didn't follow +guidelines. Where complex maths and chemistry and tables were included +the work had sometimes to be re-input to conform to the required +style. Geeti commented that she found that spell checkers were not +particularly useful in scientific work. + +To conclude, Geeti commented on the position of her department as an +in-house production unit for John~Wiley \& Sons Ltd. She found that +scheduling could be difficult: the work load had great variation. In +very slack periods, they would need to get ordinary manuscripts typed to disk +(by free-lances) so that they could be treated as disk-based. There was also +a lack of flexibility. Being in-house meant there was not a normal commercial +relationship between her department and the rest of the company. +She felt that decision-making was driven by the technology and that there was +an investment cycle or spiral. She further commented that it was difficult +to find and then to retain trained staff. Colleagues at John~Wiley \& Sons +needed to recognise the change in working practices. + +\heading{Peter~Robinson and Stephen~Miller}{Oxford University} + +Peter~Robinson is from the Computer and Manuscripts Project and Stephen~Miller +is a member of the Computing Service, both at the University of Oxford. +They used a Macintosh to demonstrate a program and a set of macros that +together can be used to produce critical editions. Stephen illustrated +what a critical edition is by showing some lines of Shakespeare's +{\it Hamlet}. The top part of the page contained the text according to a +particular edition. In the bottom part of the page were notes on +various differences between the chosen edition and other +editions. These can include different use of upper or lower case, different +forms or spellings, and commentary on the text. + +The traditional process of making a critical edition involves visiting +a great many libraries and using index cards to note all the variations. +Peter has developed a program, {\sc collate}, which will put all this into +computer files. Having sorted the text using {\sc collate}, it is then +possible to include \TeX\ markup commands so that the output can be processed +by Dominik~Wujastyk's {\em edmac} macros to produce a typeset critical edition. + +The {\sc collate} program can be obtained from Peter~Robinson, email: +{\tt peterr@uk.ac.ox.vax} and the {\em edmac} macros can be obtained +from Dominik~Wujastyk, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, +183, Euston Road, London, NW1~2BN; email: {\tt d.wujastyk@uk.ac.ucl} +% +\heading{Christina~Thiele}{Carleton University Press}% +Christina~Thiele +said that her work was virtually all in the humanities --- and that she +used \TeX\ for it all. The Carleton University Press published in various +languages, principally English and French. \TeX\ was used in-house, not by +their authors. There was about 80\% electronic submission of manuscripts. +Authors were given a form to complete. Christina always included a +log of the file's history at the start of each \TeX\ file. The publishers +made any necessary corrections to the text, as they can't fix the errors +that the authors introduce. With this particular work, Christina uses +some 20--30 basic \TeX\ commands and modifies existing macros. She +usually starts by coding the text and writes the macros later. They mainly +use IBMs on which to run \TeX . She does 12--14\% of the University Press's +output; previously all the typesetting was farmed out. + +She emphasized how important it was to document your own work and +reminded us that \TeX\ was for humanities as well as maths. +% +\heading{Malcolm Clark}{Polytechnic of Central London}% +The final speaker of the conference was Malcolm Clark of the +Polytechnic of Central London and current President of TUG. His talk +described the problems he had faced when producing the proceedings +of the \TeX88 conference at Exeter, and how he had solved them. + +Malcolm started by giving the history of his previous +experience of producing books with \TeX. He then discussed how +he had chosen the papers to appear in the Proceedings. His basic +idea was to print the papers that had actually been given, but +the editor's decision was final and he did include one paper that +had not been given -- and had to omit papers that had been given +but had not achieved any permanent form. He pointed out the choices +facing an editor where not all the authors were writing their +native language: he liked to edit the work enough for the meaning +to be clear but so as to preserve the author's voice. He said that +it is not possible to achieve uniformity of texture over a multi-author work as +styles varied too much. +He told of his difficulties of finding a +publisher, and his determination to do so -- if only for the +warehousing. +He had chosen to use Computer Modern typeface, and pointed that +at 1270 dpi resolution it was excellent. +Malcolm had used a professional indexer to compile the index for the +book but he was not entirely happy with the result. + +His conclusions were that this kind of publishing was time consuming. +The book needed `objective' +editing and copy editing was also essential. He had discovered that +publishing is more than just assembling the papers. +He pointed out that it was tempting to keep refining, but that the temptation +should be resisted. He reminded us that other amateurs (his authors) had their +own priorities and so didn't keep to Malcolm's timetable. And finally he said +don't expect thanks, but it is fun. +% +\vskip30pt +The Conference ended with a general forum. Three main points were raised. +The first one was that there was a +need for a common set of tfms for PostScript. (These are the font +metrics that determine how much horizontal space each character occupies.) + +The second was the availability of publisher's +style files. Geeti~Granger said that John~Wiley's style files were available +only to intending authors. Rod~Mulvey said that this was for the publishers +to decide; +some of the style files that he uses are in the Aston Archive +and others are on the Cambridge University computer. The question +of out-of-date style files was mentioned, but there is no easy or +complete answer. + +The third point was to do with the potential archival nature of the +electronic manuscript. On the whole, the publishers represented by the +speakers did keep the electronic manuscripts, but only Geeti~Granger said +that as a matter of course she made all late corrections to the electronic +manuscript. + +Reference was made to the work done by Jane~Dorner on the arrangements +(or the lack of them) +between authors and publishers for dealing with electronic manuscripts. +Her report is called {\it Authors and Information Technology. New +Challenges in Publishing}, BNB Research Fund Report 52, published by The +British Library 1991 and available from Publications Sales Unit, The +British Library, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West~Yorkshire, LS23~7BQ. +This book was reviewed in the Newsletter of the British Computer Society +Electronic Publishing Specialist Group, volume 7, number 1, December 1991, +which contains a further article by Ms~Dorner. + +\end{article} + |