future-proof Fictionwise multiformat choice ?

[bkilian]

Originally Posted by ahi

You are upset because I called your excessively senseless analogy "stupid"?

Oh, and I'm not upset at all. The fact that you find my analogy stupid is amusing to me too.

Your complaint is that machines obviously can't do the job of a properly trained expert in the field, and therefore people have to be stupid to prefer the machine version over the human version.

I'd say my analogy fits that quite well. It also points out that in the end, the consumer will choose what benefits them most, and not what the "literati" believes is best for them.

Someday, when Amagooglezon is beaming books directly into peoples implants so they scroll past our eyes virtually, someone will say the same thing you did, except they'll be referring to the old perfect tech of ebooks on a physical device.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by bkilian

...

Someday, when Amagooglezon is beaming books directly into peoples implants so they scroll past our eyes virtually, someone will say the same thing you did, except they'll be referring to the old perfect tech of ebooks on a physical device.

Yeah, but will it have Adobe DRM?

[bkilian]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yeah, but will it have Adobe DRM?

God, I hope not. Imagine brain DRM. "I'm sorry, but you have exceeded your license to think about this book... bzzzzzz". Just hope that the movie industry never works out how to wipe our brains as we leave the movie theater.

Personally, I cannot abide by DRM of any form. I refuse to be treated like a criminal by the publishers.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by bkilian

Oh, and I'm not upset at all. The fact that you find my analogy stupid is amusing to me too.

Your complaint is that machines obviously can't do the job of a properly trained expert in the field, and therefore people have to be stupid to prefer the machine version over the human version.

I'd say my analogy fits that quite well. It also points out that in the end, the consumer will choose what benefits them most, and not what the "literati" believes is best for them.

No. The analogy does not fit well. In fact it makes no sense at all.

Medieval illuminated manuscripts perhaps have "character", but certainly aren't higher quality or better "typeset" than the vast majority of everything that technologically follows them.

How much do you know about either handwritten books or mechanically/digitally typeset ones? And if your knowledge and understanding of them and their production is only superficial, why do you feel you have insight into the subject we are discussing?

My complaining about about eBooks' lack of professional typography is, at best, like monks complaining about people deciding to write continuous (non-paged) scrolls with letters that have no curves. Of course, that is still a very very poor analogy... but, at least, it is analogous to the situation being discussed. i.e.: A bookmaker choosing to do a low quality job rather than satisfying the quality requirements that have become status quo.

The main difference is that writing a beautiful illuminated codex takes far more time than scribbling hastily on a scroll. Creating professional eBooks, however, doesn't take a lot of time, or effort, or money.

Your << not what the "literati" believes is best for them >> comment does strike me as exactly the type of anti-intellectualist drivel I've already lamented earlier. Whether you like it or not, typographers and bookmakers really do know better how to maximize the readability of a document or a book.

It makes about as much sense to begrudge them for it, as it does to get upset with your car mechanic for understanding how engines should be maintained, or your favourite restaurant's chef for knowing what flavours compliment each other in a well prepared dinner.

Originally Posted by bkilian

Someday, when Amagooglezon is beaming books directly into peoples implants so they scroll past our eyes virtually, someone will say the same thing you did, except they'll be referring to the old perfect tech of ebooks on a physical device.

Really? "Beaming" books into "implants" so they "scroll past our eyes"? And not regularly scrolling either, but "virtually"?

What does all that mean?

Originally Posted by bkilian

people have to be stupid to prefer the machine version over the human version.

People do, in fact, prefer the human version--so no, they aren't stupid.

There are three reasons why people on this board claim to prefer reflow eBooks instead of professionally typeset eBooks (which, most of them, have never even seen before): (1) they value some other aspect of eBooks too much to feel like they have a right to complain about the appearance; (2) they, like most people, do not notice typography... and since due to convenience factors they now read mostly eBooks, they are rarely confronted with the quality difference between professionaly typeset works and eBooks and are unaware of the subtle ways in which their reading experience is negatively impacted; and (3) they want to stick it to the pretentious jackass that's acting like they can see some mysterious aesthetic difference between one set of bunch of letters on a page and another set of bunch of letters on another page.

Did you read what tompe wrote earlier? It's far more insightful than your thinly veiled insult of an analogy was:

Originally Posted by tompe

The goal of silent typography is to maximize the readability. So if the readability is reduced by 20% compared with a paper book you will most likely not notice it if you do not know what to look for. Less readability will lead to slower reading speed since the amount of "reading" errors increases.

- Ahi

[DawnFalcon]

(d) It's good enough, and paying $50/book is not realistically in their budget.

That's what the sort of "proper" editing you're talking about costs, and is typically only used for things like scientific manuals where it's absolutely required, and for good reason!

[ahi]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

(d) It's good enough, and paying $50/book is not realistically in their budget.

That's what the sort of "proper" editing you're talking about costs, and is typically only used for things like scientific manuals where it's absolutely required, and for good reason!

I have not talked about editing at all, and there are no meaningful cost factors to creating better looking eBooks. It is simply a matter of the correct choice and correct application of existing technology.

But you've seen me explain this countless times already, DawnFalcon... so I'm not sure why you'd make a plainly inaccurate statement like that.

- Ahi

[DawnFalcon]

I've seen you blow off the costs as unimportant, yes. This dosn't match my, and others, experience.

[Superlucky]

Originally Posted by ahi

It makes about as much sense to begrudge them for it, as it does to get upset with your car mechanic for understanding how engines should be maintained, or your favourite restaurant's chef for knowing what flavours compliment each other in a well prepared dinner.

I think it's more analogous to having a chef tell me that my grandmother's pies are necessarily inedible because my grandmother never went to culinary school. People who possess a specific skill set are not the best people to ask about the importance of their skill because their egos and self-interests will prevent them being objective.

Everyone likes a nice-looking book, but when you make statements about the absolute unreadability of current ebooks, you're bound to lose credibility with a crowd of ebook enthusiasts. Your love of typography inflates its importance in your mind, and you are insisting that if someone refuses to hold it in similar esteem then they are obviously stupid. Preferring ebooks to paying for and lugging around typographically superior p-books isn't "anti-intellectual", it's different priorities. I'm convinced that you would prefer typographically perfect Stephenie Meyer to poorly-formatted Nabokov. I can see you clutching your beautiful copy of Twilight whilst sneering at the bourgeois idiots.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ahi

I have not talked about editing at all, and there are no meaningful cost factors to creating better looking eBooks. It is simply a matter of the correct choice and correct application of existing technology.

Ahi,

You talk a great deal about the beautiful books that you've created. Why don't you upload some of them to the "Book Uploads" forum here as examples for the rest of us to look at and perhaps learn from?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by ahi

There are three reasons why people on this board claim to prefer reflow eBooks instead of professionally typeset eBooks (which, most of them, have never even seen before): (1) they value some other aspect of eBooks too much to feel like they have a right to complain about the appearance; (2) they, like most people, do not notice typography... and since due to convenience factors they now read mostly eBooks, they are rarely confronted with the quality difference between professionaly typeset works and eBooks and are unaware of the subtle ways in which their reading experience is negatively impacted; and (3) they want to stick it to the pretentious jackass that's acting like they can see some mysterious aesthetic difference between one set of bunch of letters on a page and another set of bunch of letters on another page.

(4) most people don't care, and I think I can prove it.

How would you rate the typesetting of Baen?

Over the summer I borrowed about 300 books from the library and scanned the cover, title page, chapter headings, scene breaks, etc. I was looking for examples on how to do typesetting.

One thing I noticed was that Baen was consistently the least sophisticated typesetter of all the SF publishers. They used almost no dingbats, the title pages were much simpler, the scene breaks were less interesting, and Baen would rarely change the font or formatting (to indicate a telepathic thought, for example). And this is in their hardbacks, not ebooks.

If typesetting were really that important, then why is Baen so successful? I would argue that it's because hardly anyone notices. I've even raised the topic a few times here on MR. No one seemed to care (not that I'm criticizing anyone).

[GeneS]

Most interesting discussion, but seems to have little to do with the original question.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeneS

Most interesting discussion, but seems to have little to do with the original question.

Dang, dragged off topic again...

[bkilian]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

(4) most people don't care, and I think I can prove it.

How would you rate the typesetting of Baen?

Over the summer I borrowed about 300 books from the library and scanned the cover, title page, chapter headings, scene breaks, etc. I was looking for examples on how to do typesetting.

One thing I noticed was that Baen was consistently the least sophisticated typesetter of all the SF publishers. They used almost no dingbats, the title pages were much simpler, the scene breaks were less interesting, and Baen would rarely change the font or formatting (to indicate a telepathic thought, for example). And this is in their hardbacks, not ebooks.

If typesetting were really that important, then why is Baen so successful? I would argue that it's because hardly anyone notices. I've even raised the topic a few times here on MR. No one seemed to care (not that I'm criticizing anyone).

Baen requires their manuscripts to be submitted as RTF without any advanced formatting. http://www.baen.com/FAQS.htm. But don't worry, Ahi would never be caught dead reading such unsophisticated drivel.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

(4) most people don't care, and I think I can prove it.

To "not care" is impossible, Nate. If professional typesetting is irrelevant, everybody (and their mother) is (however mildly) interested in elimination of that extra cost.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Ankh

To "not care" is impossible, Nate. If professional typesetting is irrelevant, everybody (and their mother) is (however mildly) interested in elimination of that extra cost.

Certainly-if they see the cost. Customers don't, so they don't care.