\centerline{\bf BCS-EP Meeting, November 26th, 1988}
\medskip
\noindent
Entitled `Desk Top Publishing -- The Reality!', this
meeting promised much. The reality of course was
publishing reality --- remember printing presses
and all that sort of stuff? Most of the speakers
had been
involved with the printing and publishing industry
for some years, and were therefore able to offer
a more sober view than the usual `gee-whizz, sooper,
what's kerning?' picture that you might pick up
from glossy brochures and trade exhibitions.

Paul Luna of Oxford University Press argued that
electronic manuscripts could lead to a premature fixing
of form, especially as authors moved more and more
into the areas usually reserved for the publisher. The
safety net that the publisher traditionally holds
beneath authors was disappearing. He also discussed
the problems of resolution. In some projects laser
printing is acceptable, but there are many cases where
visual cueing is an important factor, and higher quality
is required. He also noted that typefaces are not
always identical on different devices.

Pierre Macke of the Cotswold Press described himself
as a `jobbing printer'. He noted the problem of
upgrades and software compatibility. Cotswold Press
will take disks from many varieties of electronic
processing (and many types of hardware) and typeset the
content. Not everyone follows new releases of software
slavishly (after all, they have work to do), so Macke can
be handling  (say) PageMaker disks over several
different versions of PageMaker. Not all upgrades
are upwards compatible, and this means that Cotswold
Press must have the corresponding version of the software
to ensure that the file will print as the customer
expects.
And of course, the customer must know which version of
the software he was using. He also made the valuable
point that many  dtp packages are complex, and that
learning could be the single biggest expense for a
customer. Another reason why the clients don't keep abreast
of upgrades. In terms of upgrades and new releases he
stated that ``Aldus are the biggest culprits for denying
things''. Adobe, on the other hand get the Macke seal of
approval, always giving a response within 48 hours.
(Perhaps Cotswold Press's reputation helps there, they
don't even reply to my letters.)

Peter Ferris of John Wiley's cautioned us that despite
the rise of dtp, authors have still not abandoned the
typewriter. He also noted the multiplicity of hardware
and software that is around, posing certain problems of
data transfer. Many authors wanted to become more
involved in aspects of book production, but he considered
this a rather expensive approach. The advantages of dtp
to a publisher included the fast turnaround of proofs,
but there were also threats from dtp, like the demands
for better royalties, and rather different ideas on
quality. He still thought that the savings on cost and
publication time were somewhat in the future, especially
when line drawings were considered, and in the whole area
of technical publishing.

Michael Bywater of Punch described a rather different
publishing viewpoint. Punch uses (a rather old version of)
PageMaker for page layout. Clearly magazine layout and
make up is rather different in concept from book
production. One of the advantages he saw was the ability
to ensure that copy exactly fitted the available space
--- and letting the author decide what should be cut or
added, rather than the copy-editor. He declared that
laser printing was not good enough for camera ready copy
 (again the problem of drawings\slash
cartoons
and halftones arises). One of his favourite words was
``crufty'', which isn't in my dictionary, but I take to
be slighting or perjorative. Perhaps I should start
reading Punch.

Peter Hammersley edits {\it The Computer Journal\/}.
He saw some differences between his r\^ole in
`scholarly' publishing and the mainstream. Among the
differences were the fact that he was dealing with a
specialist subject where the publisher had very direct
access to his authors; there was also a vested interest
in experimentation; partly related to this was access to
equipment on a research basis (like academic networks);
there was also a willingness to consider multiple
outlets, like paper, softstrip, cd-rom and on-line
access; the marketing network was less critical; he also
felt that this sort of publishing was more on the side of
the author.

As an editor he also saw himself as an interface between
the author and the publisher (the {\sc BCS}), promoting new
types of publication, advising on document preparation,
and maintaining standards (on behalf of both parties). On
this aspect of quality, he suggested that dtp had done
for writing what {\sc basic} had done for programming
(read that how you will).

Lastly he outlined some of the reasons for pursuing the
ep/dtp route. Inevitably cost reduction was one reason;
here it was possible to quote the savings which ensued
from typesetting rather than typewriting (say) conference
proceedings. The savings permitted more papers to be
printed for the same amount of paper. The improvement in
the quality of presentation also helped sales, sometimes
turning uneconomic projects into economic ones. There was
elimination of rekeying errors (a particular problem with
technical material). On-line refereeing was possible, and
again, should speed up the publication process, making
the product more timely, and therefore more desirable.
This could also mean that conference proceedings appeared
much closer to the conference. However Peter did note
that all was not light: authors consistently ignore
instructions from the publisher. The editor ends up
having to collect machine readable documents, which of
course presents a whole host of problems. He looked to a
time when there would be {\sc sgml}-based editors and a
document type definition which could be used to aid
manuscript submission. Paper is not going to go away, but
other forms of `documents' will become established. He
particularly noted depositories, accessible over academic
networks.

There was one further paper, from Jeremy Sparkes of
Baddeley Associates, but I couldn't stay for it.

It was a relief to see the extent to which the new
technology was being taken seriously by some parts of the
printing and publishing industry. It became clear that
`cost saving' was not as inevitable as the vendors of dtp
software would have us believe, and of course it was
emphasised that it was very easy to have your dustbin
overflowing with high quality (but poorly designed)
publications. One other point which was stressed was the
frequency with which new versions of software appeared
with some new features added, some taken away, a few bugs
removed, a few left in, and a few new ones added. It was
often better to live with old, friendly, known bugs than
commit to something that might be marginally better. The
new might solve all the known problems, but it had to be
learned anew.

\rightline{\sl Malcolm W. Clark}