TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
--- Dick Margulis <margulis -at- mail -dot- fiam -dot- net> wrote:
> All standard printing contracts hold printers to
> exactly this standard (the doing what they're told
> part, not the dense part).
> Printers learned centuries ago that they only get in
> trouble if they try to mindread the customer's
> wishes. The rule is "see an a, type an a" or, as a
> printer I once worked for put it, "if the manuscript
> says 'shit the door,' type 'shit the door,' not shut
> the door."
> If you find a printer who takes it upon himself to
> correct the "errors" in your manuscript, find
> another printer.
Yes, I'm well aware of this fact. That's why I mention
the exacting reviews and instructions. That's the only
way you can be sure to get your point across.
I found this was a necessity while I worked with a
certain printer. We completed about 75% of the
newsletter and asked them to insert some specialty
clip art and a few other things.
This particular newsletter was developed in Quark and
used several intersecting lines: a vertical line down
the left side of the page and a horizontal line at the
top. They were supposed to form a perfect 90º angle at
the top left corner. I'd had a lot of trouble getting
them to do this: usually, one of the lines would
"jump" just a bit (the problem was compounded if the
snap-to guides were turned on: inevitably, the lines
would move to the guides).
Since we were using a PC and they used a Mac, I was
aware of possible conversion problems. So, as usual, I
sent my instruction sheet. One of the instructions was
to "be careful of all lines. They are supposed to
intersect perfectly as they do on the dummy." I marked
these lines and the possibility clearly in the dummy,
When we got back the proof, sure enough, all of these
nicely-intersecting lines had huge gaps between them
or were moved over so that there was a nice square
"hole" at the corner.
To me, there was no excuse for this - they had been
given a heads up but were too lazy to double check the
document. Two proofs later, most of the lines were in
place; however, there are still some out of place in
the final document (the situation turned into one of
those choose-your-fight things. We had more important
issues, and eventually had to drop that printer).
The bottom line is that printers need precise
instructions - and then you still have to review
carefully - and pray - that they get it right