CompuServe Thread

#DTP gone bad!

52 messages in this thread
#5492From: David VereschaginJan 18, 1990 11:23 PM
Wait a Minute! Tripp, if "most" dtpers can't tell Garamond from Times and couldn't care less, who the heck is buying all these fonts? Maybe they don't complain about the "cut" of faces, like Kathleen or I might, but if they're buying something that isn't built into their printer they are definitely seeking something, and that something is a "look". It seems to me that there are a lot of people who've first been introduced to type aesthetics via dtp and are willingly educating themselves about these kinds of issues. What kind of work is it you do that you don't care how your type looks? And if you don't care, do you do all your documents in Courier? Granted there are issues beyond the purely aesthetic, but aesthetics are the first determining factor, if you ask me. For most jobs, you have in mind a certain kind of face you are looking for. You decide which face(s) best matches what you seek. Then you see which vendors offer that face or something close to it, and then you seek out other things, such as is it Type 1, is it hinted, how fast will it output, depending on what kind of work you are doing (are you a service bureau or a designer, going low-res or high).
#5598From: Tripp NarupJan 19, 1990 11:31 PM
Actually, I was just trying to get a rise out of Kathleen… instead got one out of you. For the record, I've been in advertising typography for 15 years now. Our clients are all major ad agencies and Fortune 100 companies. They are *very* demanding. Given that background, obviously I care about what type looks like. Given the realities of DTP, most people in my position feel that type quality took a major dive with the introduction of DTP. The cuts have often been "regularized" to improve their look on low-rez devices. Kern pairs are too few and poorly defined. Many DTPers let their documents default out the window and wind up with lousey hyphenation, crummy rags, bad letterspacing and worse word spacing. These are facts … I run out 100+ pages of other people's work every day. 90% of them are poorly done. 10% are done by people who take meticulous care in producing their documents. My point was not to slam DTP in general, merely to say that most DTP users don't really care about the cut of a face and it is therefor not a real issue in the market place. If it *were* an issue, you wouldn't see so many Adobe fonts out there … there are other foundries who do a much better job. Other than that, I enjoy razzing Kathleen about DTP in general… Another point: These days I work exclusively with DTP applications and I enjoy it. There are many things I wish for in terms of quality, but I'm certainly not advocating a return to pre-DTP technology. And one last point: who's buying all the fonts? My bet is service bureaus account for the lion's share. We've got close to $30,000 in Adobe fonts alone. You lump *all* our DTP clients together, and they don't come close to that.
#5676From: Tom TamlynJan 20, 1990 2:35 PM
>>you wouldn't see so many Adobe fonts out there … there are other >>foundries who do a much better job. Could you say more about this? I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to make up my first font shopping list. Currently I can use only ATM compatible fonts and Bitstream "type f" fonts (I use a GCC PLP printer). TTT
#5702From: Tripp NarupJan 20, 1990 7:13 PM
Unfortunately, I'd have to recommend Adobe fonts. They work with ATM, every service bureau worth its salt has them and that's that. I've yet to hear from an Art Director who complained about the cut of Adobe fonts and frankly, I just don't think Mr. & Ms. J.Q. Public would notice one way or the other. Our basic rule is this: Buy Adobe first … if they don't have the font, buy it where you can. Bitstream fonts don't work with ATM and look horrible on the LaserWriter if you bought the hi-rez versions. If you plan to use service bureaus at all, buy Adobe. Period. (Others may disagree.) If you don't use service bureaus, buy whatever you want to. Bitstream has a lot of nice PS fonts that Adobe has not yet cut. So does Monotype. Joe Treacy is also cutting some nice looking stuff (Treacy Faces). The bottom line is how transportable do you want your files to be? If you need transportable files, use Adobe fonts since they have the largest installed base. Most service bureaus are not willing to buy the entire Adobe collection *plus* the entire Monotype library, etc. At $10 a page, we generally settle on buying the entire Adobe library and a few extra faces from others as needed.
#5736From: Tom TamlynJan 21, 1990 1:30 AM
Thanks Tripp. I've gotten the message about Adobe fonts for service bureau work pretty clearly. However, I've never used a service bureau, and if I ever do it will be very, very rarely. I'm a 100 percent "low-res" output person (as much as it burns me to describe my precious, my wonderful 300 dpi laser printer as "low resolution." TTT (What's worse of course is the fact that I can see the difference, although I'm trying _not_ to become more sensitive. There's no reasonable prospect of a 500 dpi printer in my future, at least not in the first part of the decade.) TTT
#5761From: Dan Brogan <Sysop>Jan 21, 1990 10:59 AM
If your work is primarily 300 dpi, then you'd also want to stick with Adobe faces, because, as a group, they look better at that resolution than do the others. P.S. Higher-res laser printers aren't necessarily the answer. Check out the type in Publish!'s review of LaserMaster 1,000×1,000 printer for proof.
#5836From: David SatzJan 21, 1990 8:34 PM
Let's give LaserMaster a chance to find out what went wrong on that page before jumping to conclusions, shall we? They're generally a serious and responsible outfit.
#5742From: Associated GraphicsJan 21, 1990 3:51 AM
Tripp, Hear, hear (here, here?). I agree that DTP (Dirty-Toilet-Paper) has let a lot of sloppy people loose setting type who have absolutely no business doing so (and in some cases have made a business of doing so!!!). We run a service bureau and get the same 90% poorly done pages. Oh well–except when people think it is our equipment that is to blame for poorly composed pages (which is on my Top-Ten list of reasons to take up flipping burgers at Micky D's for a living). I would argue that the cut of a face is not nearly so important as the layout that face is found in. Somethings scream DTP at me cause I know it is an ugly Adobe face, but most stuff that screams DTP at me is because of the layout. I am also fairly nearsighted and therefore can't really see the finer points of a cut in the finer point sizes. Bruce/AGS
#5799From: Tripp NarupJan 21, 1990 4:00 PM
Occassionally, I have to remind myself that DTP is a very new technology and the people using it are also new to producing typeset pages. I know when I first started setting type, I certainly did a crummy job of it. The same holds true for DTP. It is my hope that as people become more experienced with the various DTP products that they will start producing better looking pages. Already, some of our clients (unfortunately a minority) have made the transition from schlock to quality stuff. Eventually, our corporate clients will come to realize that "Yes, Virginia, we *DO* need proof readers…" If I had to choose just *one* thing that corporate DTP users could do to improve their work it would be to hire a proof reader! Eventually, I expect the DTP market to sort itself out the same way traditional typesetting did: there will be those who produce quality work at a premium price, and those who do "good enough" work for a lesser price. It is also my sincere hope that most DTP users will eventually discover what an em dash is and forsake the use of double hyphens…
#6023From: Associated GraphicsJan 23, 1990 12:52 AM
..and discover where the "real quotes" are and forsake the use of feet (') and inches (") marks…
#6074From: Bill PulverJan 23, 1990 11:33 AM
..not to mention APOSTROPHES! If I see one more prime mark where and apostrohe should be, I'm gonna xerox the page in the Mac owner's amnual that describes where the apostrophe is and start stapling it to some art directors' foreheads! –Bill
#6088From: Associated GraphicsJan 23, 1990 5:52 PM
Bill, Thank MacGod for Word 4 and "Smart Quotes" and PageMaker's and Quark's convert quotes features, now it's if only art directors could figure out where _those_ check boxes are! Bruce/AGS
#6105From: Steve WernerJan 23, 1990 10:35 PM
Bill, APOSTROPHES are the worst! It's amazing how many times you see them in headlines (typically in ads in computer publications like MacWeek) where they just jump out! ^Steve^
#6125From: Bill PulverJan 24, 1990 3:39 AM
Steve, and Bruce and Jon and everyone else who's been in on this thread– Though we've been having a bit of fun with people who can't find quotes and em dashes and such, I'm sitting here now feeling just a little bit sad and confused, and even a little distressed. One of our largest customers–in terms of both traditional typography *and* PostScript services–has opted to keep even more of their work in house on a Mac platform. Fair enough–given the state of the technology and the size of the operation (they're one of the world's three largest pharmaceutical firms), they'd be nuts not to. I don't–for a minute–share the feelings of some typographers that desktop can never ever duplicate dedicated typesetting. What I do have a problem with it their approach to implementation. They've come up with a new, monthly newletter, and have decided that with Issue #2, they're going to job it out to freelance "desktop designers", and send it to us for imaging. Tonight, they sent it in. It was, in short and without question, one of the worst-looking pieces of *anything* I've ever seen. Every period followed by a double word space. Paragraphs that were imported and then edited in PageMaker started with true open quotes and ended with double primes. Some em dashes preceded and followed by a word space. Some preceded by one space and followed by *two*. [More]
#6126From: Bill PulverJan 24, 1990 3:40 AM
[Continued] But the pull quotes were obviously keyed in PageMaker, because they contained double hyphens surrounded by word spaces. I could go on and on about absolutely atrocious rags, hyphenation that defied both English and algorithmic logic, widows, orphans, and so on. Worse, photo boxes drawn with four single rules–none of which butted–and then capped with another, green, rule which was a full 1/32" away from the box it was uspposed to butt up against. And during the week it took their "freelance designer" to create this masterpiece, she'd call me at least daily to find out how to do such and so. My bitch isn't that the freelancer is going to get money that we used to get for typesetting–by the time we separated it, sorted it out, waded through the six diskettes (!) the designer sent in, imaged the ten pages (twice, with film overlays), we've charged a *lot* of money. In fact, almost as much as it cost to have us set Issue #1 from the get-go. BTW, I laid out, set and imaged Issue #1 myself, in PageMaker, in less than eight hours. That took one PageMaker file, one FreeHand file, and the FreeHand.EPS file, totalling about 600K. Tonight's abortion totalled 31 files; 3.2 megabytes. And it absolutely looked like hell. [More]
#6127From: Bill PulverJan 24, 1990 3:40 AM
[Continued] I don't know–perhaps I take it all too seriously. But it pains me–a lot–to see a technology that is supposed to release an individual's creativity and power of expression so abysmally abused. What looked good, and cost a total of about $1100 the first time around, looks horrible and will cost anywhere from two to three times as much the second time around. The person supervising the corporate communications department? Suggesting to her that perhaps something is amiss would be tantamount to telling her that maybe her ego should take a flying leap, and I suppose that if they're willing to pay for it that I should just keep my mouth shut. It's not that they don't know what good work looks like–they do, and routinely demand it from us and other vendors. It's just…it's just…hell, I don't know *what* it is. Anyway, thanks for letting me get it out. –Bill BTW, Steve, it was great to finally get to talk to you today. Thanks for everything…
#6141From: Thom Hartmann <HiResOp>Jan 24, 1990 9:07 AM
Bill, We have this same problem with a local hospital. They spent $15,000 on an in-house Ventura DTP system, and now have to get their "money's worth" out of it. That means that they do the entire job in VP, and then sent it to us as laserwriter pages, which we *completely redo* in QuarkXPress, fixing *all* of the things you mentioned, then lino it out and print for them. It's truly bizarre, but it satisfys the beaurocrats… (sp?) –Thom
#6147From: Steve WernerJan 24, 1990 9:51 AM
Whew, Bill, I guess a Compuserve forum can serve the function of a therapy group too <grin>. (Sometimes we just have to let it out.) I understand your frustration at seeing such a bad job coming in from an old customer. Hopefully the person supervising the corporate communications department will recognize it too. If not, oh well, there's probably not much you can do. Good to talk to you too. ^Steve^
#6154From: Jon HodgesJan 24, 1990 11:21 AM
Hey Bill: LIGHTEN UP! Your drug company client is obviously just doing this to encourage you to develop an ulcer. They probably figure the $1,100 they've wasted will be recouped in ulcer medicine within two years (a fine payback schedule, worthy of the MBA the company probably has who is developing these fiendish plots). Even sooner if they can take Tripp along with you (but he's too mellow to get this upset). Meanwhile, I've got to head into work where I'll probably be stripping in Berling into a client's Quark job for the fourth night in a row because (A) he wouldn't let me just reset the job on the Quadex (B) he didn't want to wait while I tried to get a Berling PS font and (C) he assured me he would only need one pass on this job, so it was worth the two hours of stripping needed to save his Quark file (which didn't look all that hot in the first place). –jon
#6162From: C. Blaise MitsutamaJan 24, 1990 3:51 PM
Bill, What companies will do because they _think_ they'll save time and/or money! Going in-house was not their mistake, as you indicate. Hiring an obviously inexperienced and unqualified designer was. And you'll probably be called in to justify your bill because her work was _supposed_ to make your end less costly. Although, I'm not in DTP as a business, I use aspects of DTP to promote and enhance my business image. Of course, I don't get as technical as you would, and I have saved money rolling my own, but I empathize with your sad experiences. I _have_ found, though, that a client is frequently thankful to know that something is wrong so they can fix it before it goes higher up. If they catch the extra expense now, they won't have a huge difference between budget v. actual at the end of the month (or quarter) to account for. If the person coordinating has time, perhaps you could offer to show her exactly how you had to resect the document to make it right. Make yourself part of the solution. Be as reasonable with her as you've been in your msg. here. If you make sure she knows that you're working _with_ her and not just pointing out deficiencies in her system, she'll probably appreciate your candor. Perhaps you could locate a qualified and skilled DTPer on this forum (or Working from Home <GO WORK> forum) to refer her to. Let her know that you're willing to work with a desktop designer–as long as they're able to give her the results she expects. [More]
#6163From: C. Blaise MitsutamaJan 24, 1990 3:51 PM
[Continued] I have a consulting business and have never had a client resent my pointing out deficiencies in the system because I _never_ just point up the problems. I always try to offer a solution or suggest an alternative. The alternatives may not include any direct benefit to me. Because my clients believe that I have _their_ best interests in mind, they have never questioned my objectivity, frequently saying they _prefer_ to work with me even when I'm _not_ the optimal solution! Good luck with this aggravating situation. * — Blaise
#6197From: Dave SaundersJan 24, 1990 9:42 PM
Bill, I have a lot of sympathy for you rant! I'm glad you had this opportunity to get it off your chest. One phenomenon I've observed is that the very same person who demands absolute perfection from an external typesetter, loses all perspective when judging his or her work. It certainly sounds as though the pharmaceutical company has selected a novice (based on the number of calls made to you). Perhaps they don't realize how much of a novice. Sympathy. Dave
#6303From: Don ArnoldyJan 25, 1990 8:35 PM
Bill – GOD, that's frustrating. Back when I used to run a department, and had 6 people working for me, I hired a lot of beginners. They'd come in with these GREAT freelance jobs, that dropped in their laps, and would have to as me how to do them. Being a nice guy, I'd help them… but I always wondered why the least-experienced artists got the best jobs. Incompetent competitors are probably a fact of life in most professions… hopefully they get better or go away. It is annoying to loose work to them. It appears to me that this particular customer was in some way dissatisfied (whether it was design style, price, turnaround, your shirt color, or the phase of the moon), or they wouldn't have looked elsewhere. They didn't "keep it in-house", they jobbed it out to a freelancer. Because they seem to have made a poor choice in alternatives, you have a second chance to address their dissatisfaction. I don't think that approaching the corporate comm person <neccessarily> has to be a challenge to her ego, if you present it right. My personal philosophy is: the more my customers know about the process, the better they'll like my service — 'cause I'm good at it. Last december, a customer for whom I had done a couple of catalogs, decided to use someone else. After $2000 worth of charges from this "cheaper" source, they were 3 weeks late and only a quarter done. They called me in a panic, I charged them $1000 more to fix the mess than I would have to do it right the first time, and got them back on schedule (just barely). I don't think I'm in danger of them going elsewhere again. — don
#6117From: Jon HodgesJan 24, 1990 12:59 AM
Bill: Personally, the Mac's SMART QUOTES are driving me CRAZY! When I keep moving files off the Mac and into our Quadex system, they come across in QASCII as capped Rs and Ss, the em dash as cap Q, etc. and so forth. Keep telling myself to carve out some time and write a little program to convert the Mac's hi-order stuff to typesetting style tags, but haven't gotten around to it. Besides, I always liked inch marks. Especially in the sans serif faces <g>. –jon
#6134From: Brad Walrod <Sysop>Jan 24, 1990 7:17 AM
If you don't already use Add/Strip, I'd recommend it for de-Macifying files, Jon. It only works on text files, but you can set up 9 different translation, which should be enough to get most of the common high-bit Mac characters stripped or converted. (I have to use it here to make sure I'm uploading text files that can be used on all platforms and can be read on-line.) <BW>
#6149From: Jon HodgesJan 24, 1990 10:17 AM
Brad: I've used Add/Strip going from IBM to Mac, but I forgot it can go the other way. De-Macify. Great word. –jon
#6193From: Beth Ann AdcockJan 24, 1990 9:05 PM
Please excuse my jumping in here with an unassociated query, but which Associated Graphics are you?
#6291From: Associated GraphicsJan 25, 1990 5:35 PM
Beth Ann, We are the one, the only, Associated Graphic Services, Ltd., and we are in Albany, New York. But you know that now. Thank's for stopping in! Bruce/AGS
#6302From: Beth Ann AdcockJan 25, 1990 8:29 PM
Please tell me the subject your message was listed under is only a hold over.
#6002From: Joe EngelJan 22, 1990 11:12 PM
Hi Bruce: Re your point of view on DTP. I suspect your nearsightedness has progressed beyond your eyesight! How is the view from the mount?
#6029From: Associated GraphicsJan 23, 1990 1:52 AM
Howdy Joe, Re "How's the view from the mount?": Crystal Clear (with my specs on). Would you like me to send you some samples from my scrap heap? Some of it I'm repsonsible for myself. One more thing, I owe DTP everything, DTP has made our service bureau (and my job) possible. DTP has also made possible a lot of publications that otherwise never would have been produced. This is both good and bad. BTW we use exclusively Adobe type, my point was it is the layout that looks good or bad. Bruce/AGS (who is looking for his rose-colored glasses to examine output with)
#5876From: David VereschaginJan 21, 1990 11:31 PM
Whew, I hope can reply to at least some of your points. I didn't think you were slamming dtp (else, why are you in this forum?), and I thought I'd be clever and beat Kathleen to the punch. And after I posted my message I realized I still has some arguments left over. Perhaps some other time. First, let's not forget that dtp is still a very new way of producing documents, and as such is infant technology that is still learning to walk, so to speak. I think it's amazing what we can do now that I didn't even dream of 10 years ago. As the field matures things will get better from a technical point of view. Second, most of your complaints have to do with amateurs attempting design without any background, just because they now have computers that allow them to do it. I think it is an argument conceded everywhere that there is a lot of bad design out there. Is it any worse than it used to be? Is there any more than there used to be? I think not. It's just that the bad design now has a few more pretensions to it, which makes it seem worse. I don't think you can blame the technology. The hype behind the technology, though, must certainly shoulder a lot of responsibility. And again, I would say, that's a conceded argument. (Which, unfortunately still hasn't stopped the hype and its lure.) People have been sold a line that a computer, given a small set of rigid rules, can do design thinking for them. The bastardization of type through "regularization" and "modernization" was happening long before dtp came along. Take ITC Garamond, for example. This is not a new issue, and perhaps is one that only plagues us now because, at this point in history, there is much interest in historical fidelity in the arts in general. Granted, cuts have been regularized to improve their look on low resolution devices. But what is our goal? Artistic purity or decent looking type? If 300 dpi is being used, I want to see faces that look good in that medium. And I think Adobe has paid some attention to that, especially with their own faces. I [continued in reply]
#5877From: David VereschaginJan 21, 1990 11:32 PM
[continued] think that's to their credit. And if a historical face has to be adjusted to turn out well at 300 dpi, I think that's acceptable. Now, I think more properly your argument is that because type is being designed for use at 300 dpi, it is being ruined for higher resolution. And that I might be able to agree with you on. But I think those people who have a need for truly fine type at high resolution will go to the bother of finding the right vendor to fill their needs. Now, finding a service bureau to match that is another question. As Kathleen pointed out in (I think) a different thread, many bureaus will use fonts supplied by clients for particular jobs, and remove them from their systems when the job is complete. And although this may not follow the exact letter of the licensing agreement, it seems to be how it is working out in practice. Has anybody been sued yet for doing this? (This is an honest query, I'd like to know.) Most people buy Adobe because Adobe is all they know. They know Adobe put the "35 resident fonts" into their LaserWriters, so when they go looking for more, they naturally turn in that direction. Plus, they are almost universally available. This is Adobe's advantage from having been in at the beginning of dtp. Again, as the field matures things will change. Adobe is facing a lot of challenges these days. From Royal, from other vendors, from PostScript clones. Things are still very volatile in this field, and it's a field which, until recently, was not used to such rapid change. And we're still not used to it. Most of us are complaining mightily about Royal and bemoaning the thought of having to start our type libraries all over from scratch. I, too, work almost exclusively with dtp now, and I don't want to go back, either. And it pleases me no end when I hear that my work on my Mac can pass as the "real" stuff among typographic snobs who sneer at dtp.
#6109From: Don ArnoldyJan 23, 1990 11:11 PM
Hey, folks – Do you think we might be just a little bit jaded here? This stuff that we're calling "bad" is a whole lot better than it used to be. Have we already forgotten brochures created with typewriter or 9-pin printers (and usually bad ribbons) that'd been photo-reduced on a copier that needed toner, and old rub-on type touched up with a felt-tip marker? — don
#6208From: David VereschaginJan 24, 1990 10:16 PM
Hey, Don, I agree. That was part of the point of my message to Tripp. I certainly have _not_ forgotten typewriter type, or for the more adventurous amateurs, creating entire blocks of body copy entirely of broken Letraset! However, listening to all these horror stories… What's an honest designer to do? Is this kind of hack work _this_ prevelant? Don't any of these Fortune 100 companies, etc. ask to see a _portfolio_ before they hire a designer? A resume, at least? And why is a service bureau giving free advice to an obviously undertrained, underskilled, underexperienced numbskull? (Calm down, David, calm down.) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Okay. I know it took me a while to learn the dtp ropes (way back in the first month of Ventura's release, trying to force it to do things it was never designed to do). Corel was trying to sell complete dtp systems back then, and I foolishly gave them a copy of some work of mine done "traditionally" and asked them to duplicate it. Of course, I never heard back from them. But now here I am today, a near dtp guru to some of my clients. The problem, I guess is that people are coming into dtp backwards. I was trained and worked in typography and design and I've come to dtp that way, so I knew what I wanted things to look like. Now we have people coming with no conception of what makes good design or good typography, but they have a computer that they think let's them do it easily. But they're still missing the fundamentals. Now, they _can_ pick those up. But they shouldn't be doing it at the expense of clients. And those clients should know better than to hire a dtper when what they really want is a designer. Or maybe a conventional designer and a dtper to render their work. I think I need some more deep breaths…
#6305From: Don ArnoldyJan 25, 1990 8:36 PM
David – I, too, feel frustration at seeing "inexperienced numbskulls" taking work from "honest designers." I don't think that anyone would purposely choose to publish a badly designed piece over a well designed piece, all other factors being even. i also think that the market will out, cream will rise to the top, and a whole bunch of other cliches that mean it'll all work out eventually. Part of the problem is due to a lack of understanding, on the part of the general public, of what a graphic designer is. I read an article in the recent issue of print… graphic designers didn't really exist until the '50s. Most people confuse us with illustrators or "Commercial artists". Editors are often taught that design falls within their realm — I got MY first design instruction as part of an editting class. Another part of the problem may be due to the air of snoottiness and flakiness, that our profession, as a whole, has assumed — modelling itself on the fine arts community. I think the whole thing is going to be a process of educating our clients. I feel that the more they know about what it is I do, the more they'll like the way I do it — I'm good at it. — don
#6267From: Mark Niemann-RossJan 25, 1990 12:23 PM
Sure, but that was never presented as "Professional Typesetting" Mark Niemann-Ross Quark 3rd Party Marketing Manager
#6385From: Don ArnoldyJan 26, 1990 8:20 PM
Mark – I have here, in front of me, a piece of trash that was created by a "professional graphic artist" — it was created by traditional means, phototype, stat camera, exacto knife, etc. Do you remember the fury of "typesetters" that was created when the IBM ESC was introduced? For $3000, all the home typists became typesetters — smudgy tpe and all. Part of the blame for this also lies with Apple's marketting, and to a lesser extent with the software vendors who have perpetuated the myth that if you just purchase the "right" computer and the "right" software," you can produce "professional looking" documents right at your desk — no experience needed. — don
#6120From: Tripp NarupJan 24, 1990 1:13 AM
Tapcis has done it again … somehow I missed the second part of your message and can't seem to find it now. I think we're in agreement, that it's really the *people* running the software that are to blame for most of DTP's shortcomings. (Rather, I should say the untrained people…) Unfortunately, I don't see the "good enough" trend reversing itself. As an example, one of our customers, a Fortune 100 company, has started to hire freelancers to handle some of its work. Now that their full-time personnel are just *beginning* to get the hang of DTP, they're bringing in a whole crew of fly-by-night DTPers who are producing horrendous work. The bottom line seems to be "the bottom line" so to speak. This company apparently doesn't care what it's printed matter looks like as long as it's cheap. I find this particularly annoying because they've been busting my stones for the last six years over the most amazingly trivial things (half a pt. this way, half a pt. that way, 15 passes on a job … you get the picture). Why was quality such a critical issue when *we* did the job traditionally but not if their freelancers do it with DTP? I think it's the hypocrisy of the situation that galls me the most. And given the capabilities of DTP (WYSIWYG, plain paper proofing etc.) it would seem that quality would be *easier* to achieve in a much shorter time. This is what *really* drives me nuts! The hardware platform is there, for the most part, but they keep turning the jobs over to idiots. <Whew! I feel better now…>
#6136From: Brad Walrod <Sysop>Jan 24, 1990 7:36 AM
FWIW, the 2nd part of David's message to you is message number 5877, if you want to tell TAPCIS to pick it up for you. <BW> (who is hoping to have a worthwhile contribution to this renamed thread of "DTP gone bad!" later this evening. <grin>
#6164From: C. Blaise MitsutamaJan 24, 1990 3:51 PM
Tripp, You've really hit the nail on the head, but I don't know if there's any solution to the situation. Unfortunately, some people seem to think that the software/hardware will take care of design issues. Like maybe the computer won't let you print the thing if it's ugly <grin>. In fact, a company's acceptance of poor DTP work may partially result from a lower expectation. It saves us $$$ and it's not a megabuck typesetting machine so how could we expect it to look as good. * — Blaise
#6409From: Tripp NarupJan 27, 1990 11:30 AM
I *like* that idea, Blaise! Perhaps RIP 4 will have a routine built in that automatically refuses to print ugly pages. I'd just love to tell a customer that their job was just too ugly to print! <Sorry, ma'am, it just won't go through the RIP…> I can hardly wait…
#6421From: Thom Hartmann <HiResOp>Jan 27, 1990 1:08 PM
R O F L!!!!!! –Thom
#6459From: John CornicelloJan 27, 1990 8:21 PM
Tripp, You guys are starting to sound like some of us over in PhotoForum. With all the autofocus, autoeverything cameras out there, we are looking for a camera that auto-composes and won't let the shutter trip until an aesthetically pleasing composition is arranged. JC
#6478From: Tripp NarupJan 28, 1990 12:08 AM
Such a camera would never fly! Kodak would go out of business … 99% of the photo processing in the country would come to a screaming halt! Come to think of it, such a concept would have the same effect on DTP <grin>.
#6209From: David VereschaginJan 24, 1990 10:16 PM
It's hearing stories like these that make me glad I'm on the creative end, and not the "service" end of the graphics business. I have enough trouble dissuading clients who have set ideas about what type they want to use, what colour it should be, what stock should be used, all before we have our first meeting. Having to deal with bucket brains like you've described would drive me nuts! Have you tried pointing out to them what a lousy job their freelancers are doing? By the way, if you still can't find the second part of my message (#5877, but it may have scrolled off by now), let me know and I'll send it to you as a private message.
#6410From: Tripp NarupJan 27, 1990 11:30 AM
Actually, we have a slogan at our company…. "Bucket Brains Welcome!" "Send Us Your DTP Monstrosities and Break Our Hearts!" Every once in a while I try to remember that they're just beginners and will improve with experience. Every once in a while I believe it…
#6428From: Brad Walrod <Sysop>Jan 27, 1990 2:08 PM
Tripp, Please tell me you don't work nights! It would be really great to have you and that other guy, um…Bill, at next Tuesday's CO at 9pm. It's called "DTP Horror Stories…And Successes!" and it just wouldn't be the same without you, especially as I've blatently ripped off the idea from your messages! <BW> (who wishes he could get Jon to take the night off and show up, too)
#6479From: Tripp NarupJan 28, 1990 12:09 AM
I do work nights … and I work with Bill … so count us both out unless it's a slow night, in which case we'll go online from work. (I can just see trying to explain to the boss what it is that we're doing…. maybe I could call it "online research…")
#6488From: Brad Walrod <Sysop>Jan 28, 1990 12:27 AM
Maybe youse guys could take turns working (if it's a semi-slow night)! You're presence will be sorely missed by all! <BW>
#5660From: John McAdamsJan 20, 1990 11:37 AM
David, I agree with you 100%. There are plenty of people out there who "don't know anything about type" and will accept what they are given. That does NOT mean that they can't see the difference between better typography and worse typography. Or wouldn't have a clear preference for the better when given a choice. It just means that they don't know WHAT they could demand, nor HOW to demand it. Which is why people who do know those things should demand good typography. It will be appreciated, even if not understood. Wine is the same way. Lots of people are convinced they don't know anything about it (and they are right). But they usually can recognize the really good stuff when they taste it! John
#5880From: David VereschaginJan 21, 1990 11:32 PM
Of course, I agree with you. And hopefully, as people use dtp, and start comparing their stuff with "real" design and typography that they see in the real world, they'll start noticing the differences and start educating themselves. They already are, of course, witness the dtp magazines and this very forum. It is not a hopeless cause.