Tag Archives: InDesign

Forum matters: Getting to grips with the publishing process

This feature comes from the band of CIEP members who volunteer as forum moderators. You will only be able to access links to the posts if you’re a forum user and logged in. Find out how to register.

Many CIEP members are either specialists or, at least, tend to offer a limited range of services. We are often just one cog in the long and complicated process that takes a raw manuscript and converts it into a published product. While many of us are shielded from the labyrinthine complexity of the full publishing process, circumstances can sometimes find us having to get up to speed quickly on aspects of the job.

Whether it’s newcomers seeking to make those first important contacts and secure their first clients or more experienced members presented with new processes or having to get to grips with unfamiliar programs, the CIEP forums have proved to be a helpful source of advice and information for members seeking to navigate the complicated and confusing world of publishing.

Working with publishers

New members in particular regularly find sound advice about getting established. How to find work with publishers is a common theme on the forums. There have been a number of discussions about the best way to approach publishers, including this thread in the Fiction forum, and the rights and wrongs of editorial tests as well as the experience and qualifications that publishers might be looking for. The question of publishers asking freelance editors and proofreaders to sign non-disclosure agreements has also been discussed on the forums. Anyone frustrated by a lack of response to initial contacts or to editorial tests will draw comfort from a recent thread in which members described how, even if it takes years, that initial contact with a publisher or potential client can eventually lead to work.

The question of what different publishers mean by copy-editing and proofreading may not always be entirely clear. A recent thread raised concerns about proofreaders being expected to identify and correct problems in texts that should perhaps have been picked up earlier in the publication process.

For certain publications, fact-checking is an important part of the process, and this is something that editors can be asked to do. This thread explored some of the considerations an editor would want to take into account before agreeing to do such work, and deciding on how much to charge for it.

Working with publishing technology

Many editors and proofreaders are perhaps lucky in never having to venture beyond Word and the occasional pdf. But there are a host of other programs that the publishing industry uses and you will find experts in these among the CIEP membership, many of them happy to share advice and expertise through the forums. Recent forum threads have focused on LaTeX, InDesign and MathType. If you find yourself faced with a tricky problem in relation to design or typesetting, the forums will often be a great place to find answers. A similar thread explored the options for formatting books for sale on Kindle and other electronic devices.

Sharing experiences

The forums are also a useful place for members to discuss experiences, good and bad, with individual publishers – though such conversations often switch quickly to private messages, away from the main forums.

If you’re a CIEP member seeking to expand your knowledge about any aspect of your work and the variety of ways in which we interact with the publishing industry, our forums are always there to offer advice and help. See you there!

About the CIEP

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) is a non-profit body promoting excellence in English language editing. We set and demonstrate editorial standards, and we are a community, training hub and support network for editorial professionals – the people who work to make text accurate, clear and fit for purpose.
Find out more about:

 

Photo credits: header image by Prettysleepy on Pixabay, office meeting by Kampus Production on Pexels.

Posted by Belinda Hodder, blog assistant.

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the CIEP.

Reflections on the self-publishing process

Three CIEP members, Kia Thomas, Judith Leask and Eleanor Abraham, reflect on the self-publishing process from their perspectives as author, editor and typesetter.

Kia: the author

I self-published my first full-length novel, a contemporary romance called The Scoop, in July 2022. I always knew I’d hire a professional editor before I published it (practise what you preach and all that), and I always knew I’d start my search within the CIEP, whose members have been as wonderfully supportive of my publishing journey as they’ve been on my editing one.

Finding the right editor

It was important to me to find not just a good editor, but the right one for me. I wanted someone I could trust, someone who was fun to work with, someone who could work with me the way I am – as an editor, I’m generally quite hands-on, and I work best with people who are willing to put their trust in what can sometimes be a lot of intervention. But I’m not that kind of author – I’m the absolute pain in the backside who’s extremely precious about every last one of her woThe Scoop book coverrds. (One of my notes to my editor was ‘You can prise my adverbs out of my extremely cold, absolutely dead hands.’)

I began by asking CIEP members who were looking for more experience in fiction to put themselves forward for the job. Fiction editing is very competitive, and various CIEP members have helped me find opportunities over the years, so I wanted to offer that chance to someone else. I asked each candidate to complete a sample edit. There are often debates in editorial circles about whether they’re a good idea or not, and whether editors should offer them for free or not, but I know that I wouldn’t have been able to hire someone without seeing their work, as every editor is so different.

And this was proved by the ways in which each editor approached the text. No two samples were exactly the same – everyone picked up on slightly different things, and had different solutions for the problems they identified. That said, every single editor did point out one ambiguous passage that was totally clear in my mind, and it hadn’t occurred to me until then that it could be read differently. It just goes to show why external editing is so important, for everyone; I might be a professional editor, but I’m still the author who can’t see the story from that objective angle, because I’ll always know what I meant!

I found some great editors through this process, and in the end, I chose to work with Judith Leask. Her sample showed me that she had a really sharp eye, which is obviously important, and she could work with my ideal timeframe and budget. And, just as importantly, her queries had a warm, friendly tone, which was exactly what I was looking for in my relationship with my editor.

The editing process

The edit itself was great – Judith picked up on so many little quirks I didn’t know I had. It was a really (one of my quirks is that I am far too in love with this word, I’ve discovered) positive experience, and at the same time humbling – being edited definitely makes me a more empathetic editor. She did a great job and made so many suggestions that made my story better, but at the same time always respected that the final decisions were mine to make. (I did end up ignoring many of her perfectly valid suggestions – like I said, I’m precious!)

Working with a typesetter

Once my manuscript had been copyedited, it was time to prepare it for publication. I’d worked with Eleanor Abraham before on A Very Sweary Dictionary, so working with her again was an easy decision. Design was more important for the dictionary, but even though a novel’s requirements are much simpler, I still wanted a high-quality interior. I’m a total pain when it comes to anything visual because I only know what I don’t want, but Eleanor was endlessly patient and happy to tweak things until I was satisfied.

I’m so happy with the finished book – it’s a polished, professional product that I’m proud to be sharing with the world.

Woman working on a laptop

Judith: the editor

Being chosen by Kia to edit her novel was very exciting, because I knew I’d learn a huge amount from her, and that turned out to be true.

I’ve never minded being asked to do a sample edit, as it’s part of the process for both parties to get to know one another, and it can help with producing an estimate of timing and costs. I see it as an opportunity to show how I’ll be able to add value to the author’s work, and hopefully that I’ll be reasonable and friendly at the same time. I want the author to feel reassured that they’ll keep control of their work. I’m so glad Kia’s response was so warm and encouraging.

It was both easy and hard to work with an Advanced Professional Member (APM) of the CIEP – easy, because Kia knew exactly how she wanted the process to work; and hard, because it was sometimes difficult to find anything to edit! But I really appreciated that Kia had already made some style choices that I could add to my style sheet before getting started, and she let me know when she’d prefer a query without an edit, and where it would be OK to dive in (potentially with a comment). I wouldn’t expect an inexperienced author to be able to give those instructions, but I’d make sure they knew they’d retain control.

Keeping the author’s voice

I was happy to accommodate Kia’s love of adverbs (I might have worked on a few of the instances of ‘really’!). Her use of adverbs just seemed to work for her characters’ voices and for her close narrator’s voice, giving them a fun, informal and modern feel. I didn’t feel the need to suggest a more interesting use of vocabulary, which I sometimes do when I see adverbs. And this point illustrates what I love about editing – it feels like part of the creative process and an accomplished craft. It navigates various factors and focuses on working with the author to make the work consistent and right for their style and intended audience, while keeping an eye on the conventions (there are far fewer rules than you might think).

In some places, my main input to Kia’s book was to consider repetition of words or sentence structures. I made suggestions for alternative words or phrasing, and for some Kia gently gave feedback that she didn’t feel they were in keeping with her voice. I’m completely happy with what she describes as a controlling approach, because I’m always clear that all decisions ultimately lie with the author. We had a laugh about one or two of the repeated words in certain, ahem, intimate scenes. I’ll leave it to your imagination which words those might have been!

Making conscious choices

I also kept in mind the need for sensitivity and conscious language choices, but (as you might expect from a professional editor) Kia had written with these things in mind. I made one comment relating to the female character’s safety, but Kia decided the plot wouldn’t allow a different choice, which was a completely understandable decision. I’d done my job, though, in making sure an author is making their choices consciously.

Where Kia decided she didn’t want to go with a suggestion of mine, just because her wording felt right to her, I quite understood. I know what that’s like, and I don’t take it as a snub. I’d make a comment to an author if I felt there was a risk in their choice, but that didn’t apply here, and authors are free to disagree if they wish.

I have to say I haven’t had a bad experience working with an independent author. I’ve always found authors to be open to the input from a professional editor and happy to see what a fresh pair of eyes will spot.

I think Kia’s book will be successful, because she’s written a truly entertaining novel that just about anyone would enjoy. If she’d told me to stop work after a few chapters, I’d have bought the book and read the rest anyway.

wooden typesetting blocks

Eleanor: the typesetter

Kia seems to think she was difficult, but I didn’t think that. She made it clear she likes things plain and simple. That’s sometimes all the brief you’re going to get from a client. I find that preferable to receiving a brief that is very prescriptive. Sometimes if people have really specific requests, maybe without understanding the repercussions of those, it can result in some time-consuming discussions. I suggested a few fancier features to her, knowing she’d likely say no, but it was useful to see what she considered to be plain enough. Rather than her being picky, I thought she was quite pragmatic about accepting advice when it mattered.

Working as a team

A pragmatic and professional attitude is common with the indie writers and publishers I work with as an editor and typesetter. I enjoy working with people who have clear goals for their books, brand and business. They take selling books seriously and consider the publishing professionals working with them as an essential part of the team, rather than an expensive extra.

Self-publishing can be an overwhelming process. For some writers, it makes sense to outsource certain tasks so they can concentrate on the creative stuff … and on the sales and marketing, which are going to take up lots of time and effort.

Typesetting, like proofreading, is a process that people often assume is quite easy and for that reason they might choose to do it themselves. Making print attractive and readable, while conforming to the conventions that make it printable, is, like most things, trickier than it looks. But then, I would say that.

The typesetting process

For Kia’s layout I imported her edited Word file into Adobe InDesign. In my opinion, it’s the best tool for the job. Cheaper alternatives have just eaten up my time working around their limitations. I can control and automate a lot of InDesign’s layout settings (running heads, hyphenation, word breaks, styles, kerning, table of contents etc) but I do what I call a quality control (QC) check too. If no further proofreading is going to take place (and these days that stage has usually been carried out in Word), this QC check is the equivalent of the layout checks a proofreader would do (checking that the way the text appears on the page is attractive, balanced and as it should be).

Although my settings choices took care of ‘widows and orphans’ (short lines or single words that end up at the top or bottom of a page), and kept bad breaks to a minimum, my own clearly prudish settings kicked in one time to prevent the first word on a page being ‘nipples’.

After typesetting, I sent Kia a PDF proof and she marked up any final changes she wanted with Acrobat commenting tools. With final corrections done, we exported an ePub from the InDesign file. Other ebook formatters may work in a different way but that’s the workflow and software that I prefer.

Working with another CIEP editor was a great experience. We trust each other and speak the same publishing language, and no doubt this contributed to the process going fairly smoothly. It also helps when you find people to work with who are good-humoured and pleasant!

Kia

Working with such helpful, friendly professionals was an important and really positive part of my self-publishing journey. It cost money, true, and I may never make that back (because I’m terrible at marketing), but my writing is absolutely worth investing in. I’m looking forward to working with my fantastic little team again for book 2!

About Kia Thomas

Kia ThomasKia Thomas is an Advanced Professional Member of the CIEP who works primarily with independent authors, specialising in contemporary romance. She is also the author of A Very Sweary Dictionary, a style guide for bad language; Wings, a literary fiction novelette; and, as KW Thomas, The Scoop, a contemporary romance novel.

About Judith Leask

Judith LeaskJudith Leask came to freelance editing following eight years of honing her skills in creative writing, and twenty years’ writing experience in the business and public sectors. Now a passionate copyeditor and developmental editor for fiction and narrative non-fiction, she is an Intermediate Member of the CIEP.

About Eleanor Abraham

Eleanor AbrahamEleanor Abraham has been an editor and typesetter for a long time and remembers having to look stuff up in encyclopaedias, paste up camera-ready-copy and send faxes. She will bore you about typography at the drop of a descender. Her published written words can be found in Meowditation, Maw Broon’s Cookbook, Maw Broon’s But an’ Ben Cookbook and Maw Broon’s Afternoon Tea Book. She is an unapologetic generalist – from computer science to memoir – but loves a cosy whodunnit on a rainy afternoon.

 

About the CIEP

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) is a non-profit body promoting excellence in English language editing. We set and demonstrate editorial standards, and we are a community, training hub and support network for editorial professionals – the people who work to make text accurate, clear and fit for purpose.

Find out more about:

 

Photo credits: header image by Ciao on Pexels, woman working on a laptop by Teona Swift on Pexels, wooden typesetting blocks by Raphael Schaller on Unsplash.

Posted by Eleanor Smith, blog assistant.

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the CIEP.

Preparing text for typesetters and designers

What’s the difference between a typesetter and a designer, and why does it matter? How should copyeditors prepare text for typesetting? In this post, Rich Cutler gives us a brief introduction to the world of typesetting and design.

The first thing to realise is that copyediting is a game of two halves: editing the content (language, style, fact-checking, consistency …) and preparing the copy for the publication process. Although modern copyediting has changed significantly this century, the latter task (copy preparation) remains vital for most published texts.

Second, copyeditors need to know that a typesetter and a designer are different beasts: ‘typesetter’ and ‘designer’ are not synonyms, though some designers can typeset, and some typesetters can design. The copyeditor should ask their client whether the copy will be going to a designer or a typesetter.

It helps to know the background and evolution of typesetting and design when preparing copy. The two professions are often lumped together but in actuality are very distinct and require different approaches by copyeditors.

A brief history of typesetting

The origins of typesetting lie in printing. Gutenberg’s printing press revolutionised book making in the 15th century by its use of movable and replaceable metal type, which allowed books for the first time to be made quickly and as multiple copies – previously, books were mostly painstakingly handwritten. Early printing houses employed people who arranged or ‘set’ these individual metal characters as words, lines, paragraphs and, finally, pages, ready to print on sheets of paper: these were compositors, later called typesetters.

Typesetting centres on two key principles: aesthetics and readability. A typesetter will arrange text and displayed material (such as illustrations and tables) on a page so that the eye is led naturally from one idea to the next, making sure that the context is conveyed at a glance through careful placement of the elements on a page (eg headings and line and paragraph breaks).

Typesetters are problem-solvers. The ideal layout is not always possible – the perfect placement of, say, an illustration in relation to the design and the sense of the text may result in unacceptable positioning of subsequent material – so compromises are needed to achieve a balance between readability and aesthetics. Authors, clients and proofreaders may grumble about the less-than-ideal location of a figure, but an experienced typesetter will have sound reasons for its placement.

Typesetting has always been a highly technical profession. During Gutenberg’s time and into the 20th century, pages were composed as mirror images of the printed pages by placing metal type with reversed characters in backwards order into a frame. Hot metal typesetting was replaced by a photographic technique – phototypesetting – in the mid-20th century, and a record of the text composed by the typesetter was stored as perforated paper tape. Typesetters were so skilful that they could interpret the patterns of punched holes in the tape as typographical characters and layout. Phototypesetting machines in the 1970s replaced this paper record with magnetic tape, but were yet to have screens allowing the typesetter to see what they were composing.

Preparing copy for a typesetter

Today, typesetting, like many professions, is done using computers and specialist typesetting software costing several thousands of pounds (the best known being Arbortext). The historically highly technical nature of typesetting is visible in Arbortext and its ilk, which focus on showing the operator the content of a page on screen rather than its actual appearance (see the screenshot) – headings, paragraphs, lists, etc, have arbitrary styles that simply differentiate these items from each other and bear no relationship to how they will appear in print (not unlike Microsoft Word in the early 1980s – before Windows existed!). All text items are assigned tags in a computer language (typically XML) that defines what the elements are – and a master definition file dictates what should be done with these elements, such as their appearance in print and online (which may differ), and whether certain elements are to be hidden in some versions (eg for particular markets).

Typesetters are therefore very computer literate, and are familiar with Microsoft Word, computer code, styles, tags, macros and so on.

So, if a copyeditor provides a typesetter with tagged text, a Word file using styles or even a Word file using local formatting rather than styles, the typesetter should have no difficulty producing proofs with the required layout and appearance.

If the copyeditor wants to make the typesetter very happy – and to reduce proof errors – the copyeditor should

  • remove all unwanted formatting and styles that have been applied to the text
  • use a tagging or styles scheme only (or perhaps a combination) to indicate appearance
  • provide a key to their scheme.

Additionally, the copyeditor should flag anything out of the ordinary or requiring a specific layout or appearance (unusual characters, alignment and indents in, say, a poem, illustrations that must appear together, etc). Using local formatting to indicate the appearance and layout of text for typesetting is not ideal because this unsystematic approach can be ambiguous and unclear.

How designers differ from typesetters

Adobe InDesign hasn’t yet been mentioned. It is a graphic design program, not a typesetting program. Although it can be used for typesetting, it is slow and inefficient compared with dedicated typesetting software like Arbortext. InDesign is aimed primarily at graphic designers: in particular, a breed of designer that appeared alongside phototypesetting.

A phototypesetting machine produced photographic paper with an image of text. This could be an entire laid-out page, which was used to make a printing plate. However, the pages of complex publications like magazines or newspapers were easier to create by typesetting blocks of unlaid text, cutting up this text and gluing it (along with illustrations) to a sheet of card. These hand-made pages were then sent to the printer. Graphic designers who did this job were called paste-up artists: they were skilled designers, but did not have the technical focus on type that defined typesetters.

The widespread adoption of computers in the 1980s led to the appearance of desktop publishing (DTP) software aimed at graphic designers working in publishing. DTP software was affordable and easy to use compared with typesetting software, and allowed designers to typeset publications themselves for the first time. The best-known DTP program today is Adobe InDesign.

DTP changed commercial typesetting forever – and divided typesetters into camps:

  • those whose lineage is printing
  • those with a graphic design background.

To better understand how designers approach page layout compared with typesetters, we need to know a bit about DTP programs: they are the digital equivalent of paste-up – text and illustrations are placed in frames, which can be resized and moved about a page; also, a page will print exactly the same as it appears on screen (not unlike today’s Microsoft Word). A designer’s focus is primarily on aesthetics and appearance, and not so much on the structure and function of text like a typesetter. Most designers therefore have a less technical approach to typesetting, and may not use or understand tags or Word styles – many prefer to copy and paste text into InDesign, to deliberately lose all styles and formatting, then manually reapply styles and formatting in InDesign.

All typesetters work in a similar way, but the same cannot be said for designers: the copyeditor needs to find out how the designer wants text prepared. Some designers may be happy with a tagging or styles scheme, others prefer to copy and paste and then manually apply formatting. Some designers doing the latter may be efficient at spotting and transferring formatting, others may be more hit and miss, so highlighting formatting such as italics and superscripts for them can help.

About Rich Cutler

Rich Cutler began in publishing as a desk editor for STM publishers – first at Pergamon Press, then Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. He later became a freelancer and co-owner of Helius – a business that has been providing bespoke services to publishers for three decades, including development editing, copyediting, proofreading, project management, illustration, graphic design and typesetting. Rich is an Advanced Professional Member of the CIEP. He is also an occasional lexicographer, and helped to write the Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors.

 

About the CIEP

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) is a non-profit body promoting excellence in English language editing. We set and demonstrate editorial standards, and we are a community, training hub and support network for editorial professionals – the people who work to make text accurate, clear and fit for purpose.

Find out more about:

 

Photo credits: letters by Jirreaux, printing press by Mari77, both on Pixabay, Arbortext by Rich Cutler.

Posted by Harriet Power, CIEP information commissioning editor.

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the CIEP.