Why I Hate Adobe InDesign

There is a lot to like about InDesign. In my opinion it is the best DTP program on the market, but that isn’t saying much when the only real competition is Quark XPress. The trouble with both these programs is that, despite many changes of version numbers, they have evolved very, very slowly.

What few improvements have been made are mostly aimed at the more gimmicky end of multimedia and epublishing. Not that I don’t want to generate ebooks, but I want to produce them properly and InDesign makes that very hard to do. One of my long-standing complaints about InDesign is that it doesn’t support endnotes – there is a ludicrous work-around using hyperlinks which I won’t bother to discuss. As a result, one has to use InFnote, a third-party plug-in from Virginia Systems. If one exports to PDF or ePub, the links to endnotes don’t function. At least the Index links work, but index links aren’t particularly important in fully-searchable ebooks. Compare this with LaTeX (which is free) which supports footnotes, endnotes and wingnotes (and, as you reflow the text, the wingnotes will move with it). Using the Hyperref package for LaTeX, endnote hyperlinks can be generated automatically in PDFs. Even better, the links are bidirectional: click on a link in the text and it will take you to the note; click on the note number and it will take you back to the relevant piece of text. Similar functionality can be created in ePub files.

TeX and LaTeX are very old programs. When they were created, PostScript had not been invented. Over the years, various packages have been added to LaTeX to allow it to cope with the modern world – creating PDFs, using OpenType fonts, etc. It is crazy that after all these years LaTeX is still superior to InDesign and Quark in so many ways. Admittedly, it is rather harder to use, but the pay-off is that it does things the right way. In LaTeX, text is tagged according to function rather than form, as it is in XML and XHTML. This makes it incredibly flexible. Imagine a 400-page book with wingnotes (OK, perhaps you don’t like them but I do and, in any case, the same would apply for illustrations) and you’ve laid it out laboriously in InDesign for a royal 8vo page. That was for the hardback. Then you decide to produce a B format paperback. The margins need altering, the text area needs altering and, worst of all, every wingnote and illustrations needs repositioning. How long do you think it would take you to rework the book? It could take weeks and you’d have to check it all very carefully when you’d finished. In LaTeX it might take five minutes.
Bookmark and Share
Comments

The Ultimate Portable Reading Device

The ultimate (or so it seemed at the time) portable reading device was invented in about 1450 – the printed book. The Aldine books of the late fifteenth century were fine examples of the ability to cram large quantities of text into small and portable objects, aided by Griffo’s compact but elegant italics and Aldus Manutius’s fine presswork. Later, pocket Bibles printed on India paper achieved even greater compactness.

When Penguin appeared on the scene in 1935, not quite inventing the mass-market paperback but certainly raising it to new heights, the portability of their books was a major attraction. This continued even onto the sixties and seventies, with the typical whodunnit seldom exceeding a spine width of 2cm and often much nearer 1cm. Slowly, though, spine widths started to increase, led, it must be said, by publishers other than Penguin. The increasing bulk was not caused by longer books, although there were some authors around whose logorrhoea was in inverse proportion to their skill. Rather, the bulk was increased by publishers using thicker and thicker paper. Where once they might have used an 70gsm vol. 12 paper, giving a book of 240pp a spine of about 10mm, they might use a bloated 80gsm vol. 18 with a spine width of more than 17mm. Increase the extent (number of pages, if you’re a layman) and the volume of the paper further and you are looking at a book which is 5 or 6 cm thick. I have a 5cm-thick life of Prince Potemkin beside me as I write. This may fit in your handbag as long as you leave your purse behind; it won’t fit in your jacket or coat pocket, so a book which would have been an ideal read on a long train journey will be left behind and perhaps never read.

Roll on the age of the ebook reader and people are saying, ‘Wow this is so slim, much slimmer than the paperback I’ve been lugging around in my extra large briefcase!’ And the sad truth is that they’re right. The publishers have shot themselves in the foot, almost literally, because not only can you not cram most modern paperbacks in your pocket, you cannot fit many on a foot of bookshelf. This must have a disastrous effect on the profitability of bookshops which are already suffering from the competition from Amazon and the rise of the ebook reader. You could quite literally halve the floor space of the average bookshop if you halved the thickness of the paper, without any reduction in the stock held. Think of the savings in rent and business rates!

It is probably too late to save the printed book, but, please, fellow publishers, go back to printing on thinner paper!
Bookmark and Share
Comments