Re: To Word, or not to Word?

["Cheryl L. Higgins" <cwhitnah -at- NETMEG -dot- NET>]

Geoff:

I am interested in this subject, and I agree there are some cons to using
word to format manuscripts for press, though I actuall like it alot for
basic text handling and interactive training manuals.  However, I have found
most presses want a MSWord manuscript for their copyeditors and
proofreaders.  All of the communication with the client is done through
Word, often usin the online editing tools now, and any non-word texts they
receive from the writer are either transposed into word for the work to be
done on them pre-press or returned and asked for a Word version, or else
re-typed into Word.  The interesting thing is that typesetting is done
entirely on Mac, and these files are converted into Quark for press.  This
is pretty standard across the publishing industry, from the Copywriter's
list I belong to, an interesting discussion list of some of the most
prominent editors in the country.  I've been listening and querying about
this subject on that list for a little while, now.  It seems to me that the
product we as writers use should be whatever works for us writing it, and if
we are "in-house" publishing ourselves, can be just about anything.  If the
client is publishing in house, we ought to be giving them a data file in
their programs format, or making certain they can convert our text to their
system.  If it is going to a pupblisher for printing, we really ought to
query the publisher about electronic files conventions - do they care?  Do
they want it in a certain program format, or are they going to re-input the
text no matter what we do?  Its one thing to consider, and I know editors
today are looking at the programs they/writers are using with an eye to the
Quark boys and girls at the other end of things...

Cheryl Higgins, Trying to figure out how to make my Word training manual
loose its old style sheet and pull on a cooler one.

cwhitnah -at- netmeg -dot- net

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