Re: Framemaker required

Subject: Re: Framemaker required
From: Tim Altom <taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 18:40:00 EST

At 02:51 PM 3/21/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>I don't think techwriters are in a good tactical position to complain
>>about people from the print shop applying for techwriter positions,
>>especially after some of the notions my colleagues have put forward on
>>this very list, about "rules" for "type" "design".

>Good point! ...RM

>Richard Mateosian Freelance Technical Writer
>srm -at- c2 -dot- org Copyright 1996 Review Editor, IEEE Micro
> All rights reserved President, Berkeley STC

Is there a problem with tech writers knowing good type and layout rules? In
today's workplace, we have to do everything that was formerly done by
separate professionals. That's regrettable, and it's led to masses of
unreadable offal, but it's nonetheless a fact of our lives. I don't think
it's unreasonable to expect a tech writer to be a writer first, foremost and
specially, and then expect a writer to know the basics of good layout.

We ease the transition here by having standard templates, or special
templates that we individually develop, and having writers use them during
the layout process. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with acquiring
at least some of the fundamental guidelines. And there are such guidelines,
hammered out over a long period of time. Proportions, white space, and type
characteristics, among other things, are evident in art, graphic design,
CAD, and architecture, as well as in page layout.

Tim Altom
Vice President
Simply Written, Inc.
317.899.5882 (voice)
317.899.5987 (fax)

Previous by Author: Project estimating and tracking
Next by Author: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Previous by Thread: Re: Framemaker required
Next by Thread: Re: Framemaker required

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads