Page counts? (take II)

[Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca>]

David Neeley responded to my speculations about the whys and wherefores 
of sticking with Courier and word counts in this day and age: <<I think 
your analysis is wrong for several reasons in the real world: >>

And possibly in this virtual world too. I make no claim to 
infallibility, only to plausibility and to educated speculation.

<<1) Character count, too, is meaningless for many reasons...not the 
least of which is that different fonts vary a great deal in width. >>

If you use any font as your basis for comparison, including the Courier 
that started this thread and that you refer to below, you can still 
predict objectively how long the work is going to be. The advantage of 
character counts over word counts is clear and easy to demonstrate; the 
overwhelming disadvantage of word counts is, as I noted, that the 
broadly assumed average of five characters per word is woefully 
simplistic.

For what it's worth, a single data point: I've used the approach of 
estimating character numbers for short works (a series of technical 
reports averaging fewer than 20 pages) with considerable 
success--certainly with more success than word counts. But the caveat 
is that this series had a standard template and predictable layout 
specs.

<<2) A book design is seldom completed until the complete manuscript is 
in hand. Illustrations are often added in technical books that may not 
have been included by the author, while others will be cut. Unless the 
book is part of an existing series, the design is very fluid until 
quite late in the process. >>

It's certainly true that designs come late in the cycle, and that the 
author often has little or no say in the matter. No argument there. But 
the goal of the exercise is the same in any event: guessing how long 
the book will be. That's why I said "dump a sample of typical text by 
the author into the proposed layout template (or use a standard 
template if each book will be designed differently)".

If you're writing for a series, you generally have a pretty good idea 
of what the "proposed layout" will be, right down to the typographic 
specs. If not, you can use a standard template (which for the sake of 
argument could easily be the "Courier double-spaced" template we were 
discussing) to get an idea of how long the book is going to be. In 
terms of the illustrations, either the author knows what's going to be 
there or the publisher knows what they're planning to add and delete. 
In either case, you can still easily predict the space requirements for 
each illustration. Not necessarily accurately--but at least easily, and 
far more usefully than blind guesses.

<<3) Others have pointed out why the "double space Courier" requirement 
is still with us; what they have not mentioned is that this is a font 
that anyone is likely to have no matter the machine...even a 
*typewriter*.>>

It's also a font that is ugly, that (like most monospaced fonts) wastes 
space, and that (personal opinion only, please note) is difficult to 
read and edit. Give me Times any day. The point made by others about 
how poorly many authors choose fonts for their printouts is a straw 
man; it's trivially easy to create submission guidelines that let 
authors choose any of a range of suitable fonts. Most science journals, 
for example, now specify "use a standard serif font such as Times". I 
seriously doubt that anyone with a computer produced in the past 10 
years lacks some variant of Times.

Typewriters? Please. I'm sure that there are people out there who still 
use them, including a few well-know authors, but why design your 
submission specs for a small and dwindling minority? Let the minority 
do whatever they can, but let the majority work efficiently.

<<Many houses, in fact, specify wide margins to give editors who prefer 
to work on paper the room physically to add remarks of all sorts. Since 
so many submissions are being done electronically today, more editors 
are coming up who are comfortable with editing onscreen rather than 
with physical paper. I think this trend will continue...but still, many 
editors are most comfortable working with paper. Thus, having a 
standard manuscript format is an aid for them. >>

For electronic submissions, rigid specs are entirely irrelevant. Any 
editor who's not bright enough to figure out how to set new margins and 
change the line spacing in a document really needs to get a clue or 
find a new profession. It's not rocket science, and the process could 
be automated with 5 minutes of work recording a macro.

The whole thing about onscreen editing is precisely how liberating it 
is: you can change the font size to your heart's content, zoom in as 
much or as little as you find efficient, screw around with the page 
layout until it suits your prejudices, and (if it's really more 
convenient or efficient for you) work on a paper copy whenever you 
choose.

Here's an unfair generalisation that ignores notable exceptions: The 
real problem is that the print industry is tremendously conservative, 
and as is the case in any other industry, has relatively few people who 
are master of their profession or of the tools of their profession, and 
these masters are rarely in positions of authority. That, to me, is a 
more convincing reason why the industry clings to outdated and 
inefficient techniques.

--Geoff Hart   ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca
(try geoffhart -at- mac -dot- com if you don't get a reply)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP X5 - ALL NEW VERSION. Now with Word 2003 support, Content 
Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! 

Now is the best time to buy - special end of month promos, including:
$100 mail-in rebate; Free online orientation on content management
functionality; Huge savings on support and future product releases;
PLUS Great discounts on RoboHelp training. OFFER EXPIRES April 30th! 
Call 1-800-358-9370 or visit: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.