Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (sarah)
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:28:01 +0000
Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >>The real problem with old or non-standard software is not with what it
> >>can do. Very often new releases cut out some facility you use. The
> >>problem is if you want other people to read your documents,
> >
> >Well, if stolen, I don't.
> >
> >>or if you
> >>want to read other peoples documents.
> >
> >Always converters of one type or another.
>
> Only ok if they are 100% accurate. In my experience most are not.
Only too true, dammit. And some printers' RIPs are quite unable to
digest some PDF flavours.
> >Professionals seem to be moving to .pdf, which is quite a smart move.
[-]
>
> Converting to pdf is fine when you just want other people to read your
> document. Less good if you want to collaborate on production. Editing,
> for example, which Jim does and I hope to do, it is essential to use
> word, because that is what everyone else uses. One might be tempted by a
> look alike, but in practice if it is only 99.5% the same the .5%
> difference could cause such a screw up that it is not worth the risk.
Word is essential. You can edit PDF using full Acrobat, but if the
document was printed to PDF for <some value of> proofing from a DTP
package, the designer/typesetter may have to input your alterations
manually unless they can cut&paste from the PDF.
I have some clients who insist on using Microsoft Publisher instead of
Word, which is even worse than their previous preference for PowerPoint.
At least I have access to a copy of PP; I wouldn't have Publisher if
they paid for it.
> My copy of Framemaker predates windows 98 and had already had
> installation problems installing the pdfwriter on XP with the last
> upgrade. Now it would not install at all, reporting a non-existent
> shortage of virtual memory. There probably would have been a way around
> it, but I would still not be 100% compatible, so I decided to upgrade
> that as well. Now it turns out that some of the fonts I had been using
> were not licensed to be embedded in pdf files. They work in acrobat 3,
> but not acrobat 7. Bollocks.
Yup. Have to check the licences of every font I buy these days. One
work-round is to avoid PDF by exporting to EPS (press) or .jpg (proofing
when not colour-critical). Less convenient, but high-res EPS is
perfectly press-worthy and the size can be reduced by .zipping. If
sending to press, remember you *should* only send the fonts themselves
if the printer already has licensed copies.
I can talk about this today, but I spent most of yesterday wrestling
tabular data out of Word. NEVER use Word for tables more than 5 entries
long in either direction if it's to be typeset: Word's tabbing is
eccentric, to say the least. Use Excel. And NEVER EVER type stuff with
the caps lock on. If the designer wants all caps, there's a style option
in the DTP software.
regards
sarah
--
Think of it as evolution in action.
.
- References:
- Curious, said Alice
- From: Tim Lamb
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: Elaine Jones
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: "David G. Bell"
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: Tim Lamb
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: Oz
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: Oz
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: Charles Francis
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: Oz
- Re: Curious, said Alice
- From: Charles Francis
- Curious, said Alice
- Prev by Date: Re: Welsh MP on FMD 2001
- Next by Date: Iran, first to plant genetically-modified rice
- Previous by thread: Re: Curious, said Alice
- Next by thread: Re: Curious, said Alice
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|