Re: Size of Manuals

["Eric L. Dunn" <edunn -at- TRANSPORT -dot- BOMBARDIER -dot- COM>]

The "It fits in the box" definition sounds good but another (more?)
probable cause would be imposition and binding. In the case of 8.5x11 is
there a page size to which you could impose a number of pages, allow for
the varying gutter and get 8.5x11? My cube neighbour says no (and he's been
in the publishing gig).
My argument may come down to the question of Chicken or Egg? 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. 7x9 seems to me to be the logical size to which you would have to
trim 11x17 pages bound in a book. It also all depends on the presses being
used. Unless someone with better publishing knowledge than mine comes forth
(easy to find someone who knows more than me mind you) I'm more likely to
believe the box was made to fit the book.  Standard book sizes came along
many years before standard software display boxes. In fact as far as size
between tummy and keyboard, IBM manuals piracy protection, or even
usability studies are concerned; books have been printed to standard sizes
before computers, cubicles, restrictive desk sizes, photocopiers, or
academics doing usability studies.
Of course much of all this is conjecture and unabashed opinion. ;-)

Eric L. Dunn

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