InDesign vs. Quark: 4 things

If you’ve ever sat near me while I’m working in Quark XPress, you know what a charming vocabulary I have. I !@#$% hate Quark. It’s a $&%@! buggy piece of #@&!. I may need all the glyphs in the Unicode set to type my distaste for it.

But having glanced for a minute at Layers magazine’s new “InDesign Advantage Center,” I see a solution: I can follow their example and express my displeasure by highlighting a couple of my favorite InDesign features—which, gosh! how shocking!, Quark 6 doesn’t have. I haven’t yet played with Quark 7, but I’ve been reading reviews and think it’s safe to say these are all features it’s still missing. If I’m wrong, feel free to let me know—not that it’ll make me loathe that *&%$# plate of spaghetti code one bit less.

So. Here are the four InDesign features that I miss most in my current workflow:
Continue reading “InDesign vs. Quark: 4 things”

Footnotes, Endnotes—Let's call the whole thing off!

I just had a long back-and-forth with a production editor who was making the final corrections to a nonfiction manuscript with lots of notes. When she mentioned that she was “reorganizing” the footnotes, which I took to mean cutting them out and pasting them into a separate document, I immediately wrote back to say that

I’d kind of rather if you didn’t move the footnotes, though I appreciate the sentiment, of course, as the coder-to-be. They need to be converted to endnotes, sure, but that’s a global command in Word. And I’ll wrangle them further using my top-secret note-stripping weapon, known as NoteStripper. Moving them manually tends to lead to corruption, hair-pulling, and woe.

And then she wrote back,

That’s the thing, India, I think this book has footnotes AND endnotes. I will confirm with editor…

And then I wrote back, even more apprehensive,

Well, if the footnotes are to stay footnotes and the endnotes are to stay endnotes, then *especially* don’t move the footnotes. I’m using InDesign CS2, which is perfectly capable of setting embedded footnotes.

And then she sent me the file and wrote,

The editor now tells me the endnotes REPLACE the footnotes, and the author just could not figure out how to delete the embedded footnotes (and, alas, neither can I).

Aha. This is a common problem authors have, and in trying to get around it they tend to make everything worse—utterly breaking the embedded notes and making them a nightmare to set. Perhaps you are ignorant in this matter, as well? Just in case, I present, dear reader, my final volley: Continue reading “Footnotes, Endnotes—Let's call the whole thing off!”

The Dictionary of Record

A recent post at Heaneyland!, whose last few offerings had me gasping in great honks of laughter for more than a minute, reminds me that I’d like to make a qualified recommendation of the electronic version of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, aka the default dictionary of U.S. book publishing.

Recommended because it’s the default dictionary, and if you do anything related to book editing or production you should be in the habit of looking stuff up in it, and if you must look stuff up, it’s a lot faster to do so right on your computer than to have to get up from your desk, drag down the dead-tree version of what’s probably the previous edition of the dictionary, and thumb to the appropriate page. Continue reading “The Dictionary of Record”

Math into Type

Maybe I should put some tape on the bridge of my glasses for this post, just as a precaution.

At my day job, I’m trying to come up for an interior design for this kind of freaky novel about puzzles. Or, rather, it’s a novel that is a puzzle. Or something like that. Each chapter contains problems to solve, and some of the problems are shaded in red (it’s four-color throughout—yow!), and if you solve all of those and send in your results, you get a prize. Legal details TK.

But that’s not the puzzle that concerns me.

No, the biggest problem I have to solve, aside from how to make this book look tasteful, is how to represent the inevitable mathy bits in InDesign. Because although we have a single license for an adequate if klugey math Xtension for Quark XPress 4 (in a five-typesetter shop, this frequently leads to exchanges like this: “I need the math.” “Okay, I’ll quit Quark in a sec.”), it’s my long-held policy to use InDesign whenever I can get away with it. In this case, I had already started setting up the book in InDesign when I noticed how much math it contained. Simple stacked fractions, sure, I can deal with those by hand, but square roots are a pain. And complex fractions, like

square root of<a href=1 over (x plus y))" width="54" height="46" />?

Forget it. Seek professional help.

Continue reading “Math into Type”

  1. x times (y squared []

Recommended: Editor's Toolkit Plus

About four years ago, when I was living entirely off my freelance editorial income (which is to say, when I was living off my savings), I spent a month or two trying to keep up with the discussions at Copyediting-L. And while regularly reading this very busy listserv may cause insanity, I do still recommend taking it in small doses, if you’re at all interested in editing. Because no matter how good you think you are at English grammar, reading just a day’s worth of wrangling on CE-L will impress upon you how vast is the portion of that realm that you don’t know. Flexibility is important in copyediting and proofreading, and once you see how even a group of longtime professional editors can disagree on what may seem like the most fundamental “rules” to you, you’re more likely to remember to wield your pencil lightly when changing all those whiches to thats.

I no longer follow CE-L, because I have actual work to do nowadays, but it was while skimming that list that I kept coming across mentions of a site called Editorium.com. Probably people were discussing Word macros, or how to use the Track Changes feature, or something like that. Editorium has an excellent newsletter that gets into all the nitty gritty bits of MS Word that people who work on manuscripts need to know—how to keep the spelling checker from skipping certain words that are correctly spelled but often misused, for instance, or how to delete unused style sheets. If you use Word, you should subscribe; it’s great.

But when I visited the site, I found that the real mindblowing thing at Editorium.com is the software—complex collections of well thought-out and documented Word macros and scripts. It’s these I can’t live without, specifically a package called Editor’s Toolkit Plus. Whenever I have to reinstall Word on my computer, the second thing I do—after turning off practically everything under the Tools->AutoCorrect menu—is install Editor’s Toolkit. Whenever I go to a new day job, I plead until we buy a license. Because without ETK, Word to me seems broken.

Continue reading “Recommended: Editor's Toolkit Plus”