Why publishers format ebooks differently than paper books?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Agree. An e-book only has to look good and follow (IMHO) basic rules:

- Clearly set apart the chapter header.
- Justify the text.
- Non-indent first paragraph.
- Indent following paragraphs.
- No whitespace lines between paragraphs.
- Whitespace line or a glyph/image as a scene break.

I think that all of my paper books follow these rules. I've never seen a ficiton book with a ragged right margin, for example, or whitespace between paragraphs.

It's very easy to stick to these rules (you basically need a few rules for the - and h tags), and then the reader can easily override them.

The only ones in this list I agree with are the first and the last. The rest is all personal preference. Why should an ebook follow the same rules as paper books? Because it was always done that way? If we only did what we've always done we wouldn't even be having this discussion because we would be reading on stone tablets.

Shari

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Agree. An e-book only has to look good and follow (IMHO) basic rules:

- Clearly set apart the chapter header.
- Justify the text.
- Non-indent first paragraph.
- Indent following paragraphs.
- No whitespace lines between paragraphs.
- Whitespace line or a glyph/image as a scene break.

I think that all of my paper books follow these rules. I've never seen a ficiton book with a ragged right margin, for example, or whitespace between paragraphs.

It's very easy to stick to these rules (you basically need a few rules for the - and h tags), and then the reader can easily override them.

Large print books will use ragged right and space between paragraphs and sans serif to make books easier to read. So there are fiction books that look like that.

I found these guidlines at APH Guidelines for Print Document Design

APH encourages its writers to:

Indent 1 inch at margins
Justify left margin, unjustify right margin
Use a wide, san-serif font for ample kerning
Space 1.25 between lines, especially on forms where underscores and boxes are used to provide space for writing
Double space (30-34 pt) between paragraphs or other bodies of text
Use block paragraph style, no indents

Except for large margins, this is how I prefer my books to be formatted. So I agree there needs to be the ability to have books formatted just like print books. My print books may look very different from yours though.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by shalym

The only ones in this list I agree with are the first and the last. The rest is all personal preference. Why should an ebook follow the same rules as paper books? Because it was always done that way? If we only did what we've always done we wouldn't even be having this discussion because we would be reading on stone tablets.

Shari

Because non-indented first paragraphs with the following paragraphs indented, with no line spaces except between scenes is the most efficient way to present long-form fiction.

It can be changed, especially for things like large print books, but for the most part it's the default because it's the most efficient. eBooks follow the same rules as print books in having page breaks between chapters and reading from left to right (or right to left in some languages) because it is generally the easiest and most effective way to do it.

Sometimes the same question has the same answer, whether it's provided in print or electronic form.

I'm not saying that you have to follow the standard, I usually put in asterisks as scene breaks myself, just because some people do use block paragraphs. I'm simply saying that sometimes people follow the rules that were derived for paper because they make sense regardless of format.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Because non-indented first paragraphs with the following paragraphs indented, with no line spaces except between scenes is the most efficient way to present long-form fiction.

Why would it be more efficient to have to remember that in at least one paragraph per chapter, treat the indent differently than the rest? (And I say "at least one" because I tend to see the same non-indented paragraph at the beginning of scene changes as well).

[eschwartz]

I don't see what advantage non-indent on scene/paragraph breaks has over setting a picture/asterisks to mark scenebreaks. In fact, it renders the non-indent completely unnecessary whatsoever; which isn't to say people might not still like it.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Why would it be more efficient to have to remember that in at least one paragraph per chapter, treat the indent differently than the rest? (And I say "at least one" because I tend to see the same non-indented paragraph at the beginning of scene changes as well).

It's efficient in terms of transmitting information: it makes it clear that this paragraph does not follow directly on from the preceding paragraph.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I don't see what advantage non-indent on scene/paragraph breaks has over setting a picture/asterisks to mark scenebreaks. In fact, it renders the non-indent completely unnecessary whatsoever; which isn't to say people might not still like it.

The advantage is that it renders the picture/asterisks unnecessary. Every scene needs a first paragraph, it doesn't need pictures or asterisks to indicate scene breaks. You convey the same information without adding additional design elements (which would be something else that Smashwords/Amazon/Whoever could potentially screw up).

It's the simplest option in terms of using the fewest design elements.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's efficient in terms of transmitting information: it makes it clear that this paragraph does not follow directly on from the preceding paragraph.

That may be so, yet how is it MORE efficient than asterisks?

The advantage is that it renders the picture/asterisks unnecessary. Every scene needs a first paragraph, it doesn't need pictures or asterisks to indicate scene breaks. You convey the same information without adding additional design elements (which would be something else that Smashwords/Amazon/Whoever could potentially screw up).

It's the simplest option in terms of using the fewest design elements.

And asterisks render non-indents unnecessary.


Add in an extra paragraph -- are there too many design elements now?
What about when I use .scenebreak {text-align: center; margin:1em 0}? Is that more or less design elements than .noind {text-indent:0}?

[Dngrsone]

Originally Posted by theducks

How does EXTENDING the existing layout hurt?
If the word now has a activated link to the footnote, does it really change the main body of the work (other than the typical coloring for a link) ?

How does appending Extras to the book hurt.
DVD's have had extras (audio commentary,notes...) for years. In no way did they harm the display of the original Movie. Nor did you even have to use them.

So you wish to penalize all those who use a capable device, to be reduced to the requirements of a limited device?

For the record, I am in agreement with you.

I am in favor of adding extended options for more capable devices, as long as that does not impair the less capable devices for a particular format.

However.

I don't believe, personally, that because storage is relatively cheap that one should ignore bloat.

Nor do I believe that a new product should necessarily be backward-compatible with all older/less capable devices. Up until 18 months or so ago, I was still using a Palm T|X as an eReader. I did not expect new eBooks to be in .pdb format. I understood that I would have to work a little to get my new products onto an older platform.

Such is the price (or requirement) of progress.

The rest of this-- paragraph indenting, whitespace, etc.-- seems to me to be more or less a personal preference thing. My preference for breaks would be a graphic of some sort, an unindented paragraph looks more like an editing error to me (of course, with a drop-cap it would be different; again, it's a preference thing).

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's efficient in terms of transmitting information: it makes it clear that this paragraph does not follow directly on from the preceding paragraph.

<snip>

The advantage is that it renders the picture/asterisks unnecessary. Every scene needs a first paragraph, it doesn't need pictures or asterisks to indicate scene breaks. <snip>

It's the simplest option in terms of using the fewest design elements.

I don't agree, but I'm not trying to say you're wrong. It's just not visually obvious to me in ebooks. And I feel no need (in regular fiction) to keep to print-book typographic standards. (I prefer "ragged right" on screen, for example, which I think looks like crap in print).

The Chapter header tells me I'm in a new chapter. I've always thought the non-indent on the first paragraph was overkill. In ebooks, I prefer the first half-dozen words or so of the first paragraph in a scene break to be all caps or bolded, if the publisher didn't insert an actual scene break simple (like asterisks or a little gif).

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I don't agree, but I'm not trying to say you're wrong. It's just not visually obvious to me in ebooks. And I feel no need (in regular fiction) to keep to print-book typographic standards. (I prefer "ragged right" on screen, for example, which I think looks like crap in print).

The Chapter header tells me I'm in a new chapter. I've always thought the non-indent on the first paragraph was overkill. In ebooks, I prefer the first half-dozen words or so of the first paragraph in a scene break to be all caps or bolded, if the publisher didn't insert an actual scene break simple (like asterisks or a little gif).

... Rather than their depressing habit of just removing the indent and putting a slight margin. Which isn't the easiest to see, as well as being virtually invisible if it happens to fall out at the end of the page.

I lose count of how many times I've had to page back and change the font size to check if there is perhaps a scene break that makes the book make more sense, because the publisher thinks an extra line is good enough for a scene break. And it is -- in physical books, where you can plot the layout and insert, um, asterisks, whenever that happens.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

... Rather than their depressing habit of just removing the indent and putting a slight margin. Which isn't the easiest to see, as well as being virtually invisible if it happens to fall out at the end of the page.

Not sure what the "slight margin" means? I can say that we use block-style paragraphs regularly to indicate a scene-break, with more than one line of whitespace above it. Vis-a-vis incipits (the bolded letters, or smallcaps, etc.), there are a lot of good reasons not to do those, if one is not inclined toward the extra work. Most of the e-readers out there, other than iBooks, can't use the inherited "first-line" CSS, so all of the incipits are made by hand, with spans. Then you have people bitching because they changed the font size, and, OMG THE HUMANITY!, the bold continues onto the next line. This is a hanging offense, mind you. The same happens whether it's smallcaps, italics, what-have-you. Flush-left paras, given any type of decent whitespace above, really do work on more devices than any other type of scene-break, assuming your client/author doesn't want asterisks "like everybody else."

I lose count of how many times I've had to page back and change the font size to check if there is perhaps a scene break that makes the book make more sense, because the publisher thinks an extra line is good enough for a scene break. And it is -- in physical books, where you can plot the layout and insert, um, asterisks, whenever that happens.

With all due respect, the same thing happens in print. I know this because I have to deal with it all the time, with OCR output. There are thousands upon thousands of pages out there where a new scene starts at the top of a page, and nobody ever noticed or complained; they inferred from the content that a POV shift or a time-lapse or a location had changed.

And, with regard to formatting, typos, etc., in print versus ebook, and people seeing it now, versus not seeing it before, etc.: everyone saw it before. The difference is, everyone wasn't spoiled rotten with instant gratification and some ridiculous idea that the publisher would instantly run back and FIX whatever was wrong. I think that this is the biggest disservice on the face of the planet done to publishers. In ye olden days, you'd gather up your list of typos, and if you DARED, send them into Random House or whomever, and then, if RH gave two s**ts, they'd put them in a folder somewhere, to think about--THINK about--maybe doing, IF they ever reprinted the book. More than likely not, but, just in case.

Nowadays, we have the patent absurdity of companies like Amazon sending out KQN's (Kindle Quality Notices) because some snot decides that they just can't LIVE with a typo, and sends it in to Amazon bitching about it. We received a KQN for one of the biggest authors IN THE WORLD, to fix TWO typos, one of which wasn't a typo (a Brit spelling, in fact), in a book that was more than a quarter-million words. Much to my endless amusement, she called the Sr. Veep of Amazon directly, on his phone, and politely told them where to put it. And that was the end of that conversation. I regularly tell our clients to ignore Amazon's KQN's until a) they have at least 20 typos, or b) Amazon actually REMOVES the book from sale. Other than that, it's a ridiculous indulgence. The world has already become "entitled" enough. The idea that just because it's digital means it doesn't cost them money to fix is just...infuriating. Nobody would expect Random House to recall and reissue 10,000 print books. But they expect everyone to "hop to" if it's an ebook, as if everyone can just make a change in their Word file and have it insta-fix on the retailer.

And let me tell you, before you all jump on me about how sucky typos are, and how bad some of those Indie books are, etc.: this is an unintended consequence of that mindset. I see this nonsense all the time on the KDP forums, with authors asking "how to notify their buyers" that they've uploaded changed manuscript #9 billion, because they think it is OKAY to do that. This idea, that the books are constantly fungible, constantly changeable, constantly update-able, has led to an entire world of authors who think it's OK to put a book up that is not finished, isn't ready, isn't suitable for primetime, because "it can be fixed later." So not only is this "fix-it" mindset a disservice to real publishers, but it's a disservice to the READERS, too, because you now have created a culture of authors who think that they can just fix whatever you find, while you freely crowdsource the editing and proofing that they should have had long before they pushed the "save and publish" button in the FIRST place.



Hitch

[eschwartz]

Slight margins as in as far as I'm concerned the margins aren't enough. I really do prefer something solid there. But that's just my personal tic. It's only annoying when I can't figure out where the scenebreaks are, and if memory serves me correctly, print books usually put asterisks there, or at least many of the ones I read. An advantage of having the fixed layout of a print run, I assumed.

Whatever -- I don't live in a perfect world, so I try not to get too irritated about it. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Now. Where did I say anything about typos?

(For the record, I only notice typos when I hit around the tenth one in the book, and if its that bad, I can usually collect a list of dozens and dozens. I correct them myself assuming it's something I want to reread.)

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Slight margins as in as far as I'm concerned the margins aren't enough. I really do prefer something solid there. But that's just my personal tic. It's only annoying when I can't figure out where the scenebreaks are, and if memory serves me correctly, print books usually put asterisks there, or at least many of the ones I read. An advantage of having the fixed layout of a print run, I assumed.

Whatever -- I don't live in a perfect world, so I try not to get too irritated about it. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Now. Where did I say anything about typos?

(For the record, I only notice typos when I hit around the tenth one in the book, and if its that bad, I can usually collect a list of dozens and dozens. I correct them myself assuming it's something I want to reread.)

My reply wasn't directed at you, eschwartz; it was about the entire topic. My sincere apologies if you thought I was ranting AT you. Not at all. Just the whole..."every ebook has to be endlessly fungible to satisfy every type of reading and formatting appetite, and, oh, yeah, let's get all the typos fixed while we're at it, too" mindset. That's all.

Hitch

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Just the whole..."every ebook has to be endlessly fungible to satisfy every type of reading and formatting appetite, and, oh, yeah, let's get all the typos fixed while we're at it, too" mindset. That's all.

Yes, the majority of ebook formats should be as fungible as possible. (Obviously, this is not "endless". There are limits. See below.) Lots and lots of us are reading ebooks mostly or partly because of the flexibility in layout and display. When people who think they know our eyes/brain function and aesthetic preferences better than we do elect to do a whole lot of unnecessary hard-coding, it's irritating and can be frankly disrespectful to the customer. The beauty of the e-format is its flexibility. Why impose artificial restrictions on that? Use it to advantage! That's what good design - real, capital-D Design - is about.

It reminds me of the early days of the Web, when people kept presenting fixed-width and fixed-layout pages, basically online brochures rather than real websites. Even to the point that some would present text as images of text, because that's "exactly how they wanted it to look". These sorts of formats (which are still around, though decreasingly so thank goodness!) break in all sorts of situations that the web "designers" refused to anticipate: smaller browser windows, enlarged text for people with visual impairment, text-to-speech for blind folks, mobile devices, and so on.

Ebook designers need to learn the lessons of web design, not their pre-loaded lessons of print design. They're different animals. I think a fair few ebook producers (and I have no idea whether you're counted among them; I haven't seen your ebooks) are still in the mindset that ebooks are for presenting fixed-layout print-like pages on a screen. Those people are, on the whole, wrong. About the only time this sort of imposition of layout is reasonable and appropriate design, that I can think of right now, is a children's picture book, some graphic novels, or perhaps a few textbooks. It's gotten to the point where I now run every book through a Calibre conversion before reading, because so many of them force their own design choices on me, choices that don't work for me. Ugh.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by meeera

Yes, the majority of ebook formats should be as fungible as possible. (Obviously, this is not "endless". There are limits. See below.) Lots and lots of us are reading ebooks mostly or partly because of the flexibility in layout and display. When people who think they know our eyes/brain function and aesthetic preferences better than we do elect to do a whole lot of unnecessary hard-coding, it's irritating and can be frankly disrespectful to the customer. The beauty of the e-format is its flexibility. Why impose artificial restrictions on that? Use it to advantage! That's what good design - real, capital-D Design - is about.

It reminds me of the early days of the Web, when people kept presenting fixed-width and fixed-layout pages, basically online brochures rather than real websites. Even to the point that some would present text as images of text, because that's "exactly how they wanted it to look". These sorts of formats (which are still around, though decreasingly so thank goodness!) break in all sorts of situations that the web "designers" refused to anticipate: smaller browser windows, enlarged text for people with visual impairment, text-to-speech for blind folks, mobile devices, and so on.

Ebook designers need to learn the lessons of web design, not their pre-loaded lessons of print design. They're different animals. I think a fair few ebook producers (and I have no idea whether you're counted among them; I haven't seen your ebooks) are still in the mindset that ebooks are for presenting fixed-layout print-like pages on a screen. Those people are, on the whole, wrong. About the only time this sort of imposition of layout is reasonable and appropriate design, that I can think of right now, is a children's picture book, some graphic novels, or perhaps a few textbooks. It's gotten to the point where I now run every book through a Calibre conversion before reading, because so many of them force their own design choices on me, choices that don't work for me. Ugh.

Well, Meera:

For ebook producers who want their books to look like unstyled, plain word-processed uploads, there are a zillion different ways to do that. I know that while I try not to "force" my taste on the reading public, I personally can't abide a book that looks like an uploaded Word file on Amazon (or Nook, Smashwords, etc. In fact, it was that aspect that most put me off of Smashwords, when I first came to digital books). To me, it looks like an 8th-grader's essay, not a BOOK. It may suit your preferences, because you can restyle it to your heart's content, but to me it screams "amateur!" That's only to be expected, given what I do for a living.

Now, granted, that's personal preference, but I don't hear anyone suggesting that all printed books should all be made as vanilla as possible, so that...what? Readers can change those, too? Or perhaps we should start getting POD houses to offer options (A: get your text in serif, b) in sans-serif, c) with spaces between paragraphs, d) w/o spaces between paragraphs)...I mean, after all, it wouldn't be that big of a technological leap to do THAT, either, to satisfy the endless whims of readers, would it? It would be nothing. Have the publisher upload 4 or 5 or ten different options of interior, and Createspace or Lulu or whichever could just pump out the desired choice. No?

Plenty of websites still "force" various layouts, options, etc., on to their visitors, and the more popular the website, the more convoluted and unforgiving the site is. I can think of several, that are so busy cramming adverts down the reader's throat that scant attention has been given to whether or not the site will fit on a smartphone. There are fewer endlessly-fungible websites than there are ebooks, of that, I'm pretty sure, given how many "bloggers" use Wordpress, Blogger, Typepad, and all their set templates for their CMS's. Just sayin'.

I think that this is where there is a distinct difference of opinion. Some folks want to be able to change everything digital to suit their own whims. They don't think twice about wanting the same thing for a print book, simply because it's not easy or cheap. That doesn't affect their ability to enjoy the reading material.

So why does it cause such a ruckus in an eBook? Just because the reader CAN change the layout, etc., doesn't mean that it's an absolute "must-do." I realize that on MR this is heresy, but the average person who buys and enjoys ebooks mostly just changes the font size; they don't run them through Calibre, they don't change the CSS, they don't change the HTML, they don't rip them apart with ePUBTweak and change them to suit them--they just buy them and enjoy them, as they would paperback books.

That's why I find the whole thing somewhat...whatever. A mere 10 years ago, this discussion wouldn't be happening. People would buy books that were put out by publishing houses, and if they didn't like the font, they wouldn't buy it, or they'd buy the large print edition. Now, they want to be able to dictate to the publisher how the publisher should present HIS material. I can tell you what many authors or publishers would say: "When people who think they know our creativity, creations and artistic vision better than we do elect to do a whole lot of unnecessary complaining and re-coding, it's irritating and can be frankly disrespectful to the creator of the content."

So...each side has its own ideas. I can't tell you how many times we've had clients get their knickers in a twist, because something in our layout interfered with or contradicted their "artistic vision" for the layout of their book. You can think what you will, but authors and publishers have very clear ideas as to what they want, and HOW they want it presented. So: is the customer always right, and every book should look like a plain text Word file, so that the 1% of ebook readers who DO know how to customize their books can do so, OR, is the publisher/artist correct, and entitled to present their creative work, in accordance with their artistic vision?

This isn't the same thing as websites...now we're talking about what the creators of the works consider their ART. They don't think that you have any right to endlessly tweak the visual aspects of the book any more than they'd think that you should be able to Gumby Rodin's "The Thinker" around because you believe that he'd look better with his OTHER elbow on his knee. ;-)

Just sayin'.

Hitch