Footnotes in InDesign CS?

[Dominic_Hurley@adobeforums.com]

Timothy, I don't get the point you're making. What's wrong with writing your book using a word processor and then laying it out in ID? What on earth is so hard about that? If you're looking for a wizard to do it all for you, then you're simply looking at the wrong program.

Why not try FM? Lots of people compare its features favourably with Word. No, it can't do unicode, but there are ways around that.

Desktop publishing is here already, but that doesn't mean that everyone who uses Word will be able to use those programs.

Hi Dharmamitra

There's a thread in the typography forum that lists some essential typography books, so I won't repeat them all here, but Robert Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style is probably the most cited reference (it's closest to a Chicago Manual of typography). I also recommend Jost Hochuli's Detail in Typography and Designing Books and Jan Tschichold's Form of the Book and Asymmetric Typography. There's also Hugh Williamson's Methods of Book Design. I'm not much of a fan of titles like The Non-Designer's Design Book or The Mac is not a Typewriter, but others are. They should keep you going.

[Timothy_Takemoto@adobeforums.com]

Dear Dominic

Timothy, I don't get the point you're making. What's wrong with writing
your book using a word processor and then laying it out in ID? What on
earth is so hard about that?




I may do that but it does not seem all that easy to me. It seems like it is going to be rather time consuming. Doesn't it take quite a while?

Timothy

[Robin_robiNET@adobeforums.com]

Hi

If you still need to make your life easier when work with footnotes (or etc.) - feel welcome to my page:

[url]www.suwalski.pl/dtp[/url] <http://www.suwalski.pl/dtp>

robin

[Guy_Smiley@adobeforums.com]

[email]Timothy_Takemoto@adobeforums.com[/email] wrote in
news:2ccdb61b.31@webx.la2eafNXanI:

> Dear Dominic
>
> Timothy, I don't get the point you're making. What's wrong
> with writing your book using a word processor and then
> laying it out in ID? What on earth is so hard about that?
>
>
>
>
> I may do that but it does not seem all that easy to me. It seems
> like it is going to be rather time consuming. Doesn't it take
> quite a while?

If you are very disciplined about using paragraph and character styles,
you can establish a workflow in which *all* text editing and formatting
is done in Microsoft Word, and *no* local formatting is applied in
InDesign. This workflow requires that you be willing to accept how
InDesign sets your text, and not apply any manual tweaks. Word is an
excellent word processor, and allows me to use the Endnote citation
manager plug-in.

[Paul_Dow@adobeforums.com]

Tim,
A great place to find free-lance designers and a variety of other professional types is [url]www.guru.com[/url]. It offers market place free-lancers and employers to come together and meet each others needs.
(not in a 'Dr. Phil' sense) :)

[Kalavinka@adobeforums.com]

Dominic,

Thanks so much for the title suggestions. I'm looking forward to contemplative reads of at least a few of them. It seems to be a multi-phase learning curve. Getting a handle on the program and its integration with word to produce books is one thing. Making the product genuinely pleasing aesthetically--that's another.

Mitra

[Kalavinka@adobeforums.com]

Timothy,

Although I'm not highly skilled at it yet (I've only done about a dozen books this way), I've found that nothing seems quite so efficient as producing a well edited Word product first with careful and consistent invocation of styles, this to be followed by "placing" the finished Word doc in IDCS where one has been very careful to set up and name the ID paragraph, titling, and character styles _exactly_ as they are named in Word.

The remaining steps in ID are then but relatively few. If you go the extra step of creating your styles in all of the different leading configurations you'll need, then this saves a lot of labor in the end. Once you get the hang of it, then even as you are writing the Word doc, even at the rough draft stage, you invoke the styles correctly right away. After that, it's all rather lyrically smooth.

To tell you the truth, having troubled myself to really get with consistent style naming in the two programs, the results are so pleasing, I wouldn't dream of doing it any other way. (I do very complex text layouts involving Sanskrit, Chinese, multi-level outlining, multiple chapters, TOCs, etc. and ID really seems to shine at bringing in an honest version of the Word document, saving beaucoup labor.)

Mitra

[Tony_Stuart@adobeforums.com]

I admire Mitra's perseverance in trying to use Word styles as the basis for DTP layout. I have never had any real success in doing this. In fact, my best workflow is to precode/tag Word text to within an inch of its life and then save the file as ASCII. That way I know that I have hit Word and its infuriating styling right on the head when I load the file into the *real* version of the document. No wrong fonts and leading, no plus signs after style names. Pure heaven.

But my main concern with this thread is the notion that InDesign is not really a book production tool and that one should look elsewhere is one wants so-called long-document features. The problem is that, unfortunately in my humble opinion, mainstream managers can see no further than QuarkXPress and InDesign for any aspect of publications work and their employees are forced to try to use them for book work. And, by and large, they can be used to do this. It shouldn't come as a surprise to Quark and Adobe that people do use their programs to produce anything from one to a thousand or more pages long. That's what I do in my government job. When I have my freelance hat on, I fortunately have other options.

My publications experience began in the 1960s, well before Paul Brainerd or whoever thinks they invented DTP, and guess what? The books I then edited and produced (in a hands-off manner) for a major book publishing company had footnotes, equations, chapters, indexes, tables of contents, cross-references, tables, flowcharts, a mix of portrait and landscape pages, etc., etc. These book elements (and they can apply to booklets as well as tomes) haven't just been invented. They are basic building blocks of books that have existed for centuries. Why, then, are Quark and Adobe so shy about them?

And what's this about InDesign being for 'designers'? You give me a leaflet, a newsletter, a booklet, a school textbook or an academic monograph and I would be able to lay it out using InDesign, QuarkXPress, Ventura, PageMaker or FrameMaker. I am amused by esoteric arguments that attempt to draw paradigmatic distinctions between these programs. They all bring text and graphics together to form a publication of some kind. They differ, for me, merely in the features they provide in making my job easier.

What the producers of InDesign need to do is to work towards reading in as many Word elements as possible and displaying them in editable form within InDesign. They have achieved this with Word tables and Excel spreadsheets, and they have also managed to read in entire QuarkXPress and PageMaker documents. They should now be burning the midnight oil trying the same trick with Word footnotes and equations.

I am sorry but I don't want to rely on Word any more than I need to. It merely supplies the raw material on which I want to build within a layout program.

[Timothy_Takemoto@adobeforums.com]

The ability to import Word with footnotes would be another nice solution. I was amazed at the lack of the abilty to import Word text complete with formatting. If indesign is not going to provide Word Processing functions then one would hope that it would allow smooth placement of word processed objects.

I thought that this might be possible in Publisher but sadly Publisher (like Word) is DPT challenged.