summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex')
-rw-r--r--usergrps/uktug/baskervi/3_1/a-soas.tex290
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}
+