Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pavarti K. Tyler on June 27, 2011 at 7:42am

Why is this important?  Is whether someone uses .scv versus .doc really an issue?

Permalink Reply by Dave Bricker on June 27, 2011 at 11:56am

File format is important because typesetting programs like Indesign have much more sophisticated type engines than word processors like MS Word.

 

See http://waltshiel.com/2011/03/16/7-reasons-not-to-use-word-to-typese...

 

When it comes to "best practices," a good layout program will produce better typography than a word processor and this should be encouraged as a standard.

Permalink Reply by Pavarti K. Tyler on June 27, 2011 at 2:12pm

sure, but for a certification does someone have to promise to not use word?

 

Permalink Reply by Dave Bricker on June 27, 2011 at 2:39pm

No. I'm just suggesting a best practice. I would hope a certification wouldn't be overburdened with too much "you must do this" and "you must not do that." However, a book typeset with Word will lack the typographical finesse of one set with Quark or Indesign. As someone who feels certification should come from a professional peer review and not from a checklist, I believe a book set with Word would most often appear to be of lesser quality to a professional reviewer. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter what software is used, but to the extent that there's a correlation between format and quality, there is value in considering it as a criterion.

 

Mainstream presses have really dropped the ball when it comes to book design. Because they have to print in high volumes, their initial risk is greater. To mitigate this, they tend to use smaller type and tighter leading with smaller margins to save paper and printing costs. POD and short-run indy publishers are not subject to these constraints and this provides us with an opportunity to outshine them. Why shouldn't we encourage our peers to take advantage of this? In a world where indy publishing is stigmatized, this seems like an especially valuable area to explore.

 

As for the answer to "what is acceptable for certification?" it should be broad enough to accommodate an "above average" book, yet narrow enough to encourage those serious enough about publishing to seek certification to pursue higher standards.

 

See http://www.essentialabsurdities.com/dance for my own take on bookblock design. My clothbound, foil-stamped 6"x9" hardcovers with a quality dust jacket retail for $20. I challenge any mainstream publisher to meet their standard at the same price and encourage other publishers to invest in quality.

Permalink Reply by Pavarti K. Tyler on June 27, 2011 at 2:48pm

your book is beautiful, and looks so professional.  Teach me Yoda!

Permalink Reply by Dave Bricker on June 27, 2011 at 3:00pm

Aw shucks. Glad you like it. I've been a designer for much longer than I've been a writer and I'm still learning. All I can say is the more you look at great design, the better you'll see. Grab an old book from the WWI era and look at how things were done in the days of hot metal type. I bought my first mac in 1987 and started off digital, but I have design books going back to the 1870s on my shelf. They don't make books like they used to.

 

However, there are plenty of great books around worth imitating. Also, check out some worthwhile but forgotten layout/margin strategies such as those described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaf_canon

 

In today's world, these grids are often seen as inefficient wastes of space, but they make for beautiful, elegant books.

 

Though I encourage writers and publishers to hire pro designers, those who can't or won't should at least honor their writing efforts by researching some of the fine points of the bookmaking art. Through the lens of the perspectives gathered through that research, the differences between Word and Indesign become much more apparent.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Permalink Reply by Bradley Flora on June 28, 2011 at 7:40pm

Pavarti,

In regard to the certification program's development of standards, nothing has been set in stone. On this topic, this thread is the place where those type of decisions can be considered.

I do also agree with everything that Dave has eloquently said in these regard, that a book typeset with word has the potential to not look as good as a manuscript typeset with Quark or inDesign.

But in short, should a publisher be disqualified for using word to typeset a manuscript? Probably not. Mostly because I believe that the benchmark standard, which these threads are going to help us nail down and which defines a book
as "quality", has enough flexability within it to allow for a variety of file types, and the corresponding typesetting muscle, or.lack thereof, from the respective design programs.

So my question is, where do we want that standard to lay? Should a "professionally published" independent title, whether it is certified or not, look better then most other books on the market.

These are just my initial thoughts on the issue, and I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. I'm pretty comforable with this portion of the conversation being a little more abstract, so feel free to share your thoughts, whatever the may be.