Re: Size of Manuals

[Elna Tymes <etymes -at- LTS -dot- COM>]

Eric L. Dunn wrote:

> The "It fits in the box" definition sounds good but another (more?)
> probable cause would be imposition and binding. <snip>  But, was the
> first software manual designed to fit the first product box or was the box
> designed to hold the manuals? The first media distributed were cassette
> tape and 5.25 diskettes, neither of which covers a 7x9, or whatever manual
> or box.

Given that I was there <yes, my joints are aching>, I can tell you that the
first time 7x9 books were seen was when publishers like Sybex were running
feedback sessions with their readers and the readers expressed a desire to have
the open book take up less real estate on their desks.  This was in the very
early '80s.  Osborne Publishing's first book (on DOS) came out in that format
because Adam Osborne decided Sybex and the others were smart enough to do
market research that he, then, didn't have to do.

What subsequently happened was that people like Apple and ultimately Microsoft
decided that 7x9 was preferable to 8.5x11, and others fell in line.  Mind you,
many of the other early computer companies, realizing that 7x9 was a sign of
being 'with it,' printed their manual pages as 7x9 but enclosed them in
small-format 3 ring binders.  <sigh>  And yes, there was a real problem with
perfect-bound books not staying open once you opened them on a desk.

But the idea that books are 7x9 because that's the standard box size is another
of these silly post hoc ergo proper hoc ideas.  Incidentally, the whole
business of 7x9 printing and lay-flat binding has been discussed a number of
times on this board, and is well-covered in the archives.

Elna Tymes
Los Trancos Systems

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=