"Weight Changes Bounding Box" Where is this option?

[jon_gallet@adobeforums.com]

Apparently in InDesign CS there is an option called 'Weight Changes Bounding Box' however I have not been able to locate it. It's not in the Transform options or the stroke options or the general preferences.

I'm told that it is supposed to be off by default but mine is on and I can't find it to turn it off.

I suppose a similar effect can be achieved by setting the sroke to 'inside' however I'd just like to be able to find the 'Weight Changes Bounding Box' option

This option is not to be confused with the 'Dimensions Include Stroke Weight' which is in the transform options.

[Dave_Saunders@adobeforums.com]

It's on the Control palette and Transform palette drop-down menus. I don't think you have the name quite right, but you should recognize it easily enough.

Dave

[jon_gallet@adobeforums.com]

Thanks for the reply.

Here is a shot from the Adbobe CIB that I'm following.

<http://xs306.xs.to/xs306/06386/strokeweight.jpg>

I really can't find anything relevent in the drop down menus.

It's not a really serious problem as I can work around it easily enough, it just bugs me that I can't find an option that is referred to by Adbobe.

[Steve_Werner@adobeforums.com]

Dimensions Include Stroke Weight in the locations Dave mentions.

[Dave_Saunders@adobeforums.com]

You have to have the pointer tool active to see it in the Control palette.

Dave

[jon_gallet@adobeforums.com]

No that's a different option with a different effect. That only refers to the dimensions of the path if you use the Transform palette to key in the dimensions.

For example an 8 cm square path with a two centimeter stroke with have it's dimensions set at 10cm for the purpose of resizing the path.

[Steve_Werner@adobeforums.com]

I don't think that option exists in InDesign CS or CS2. I think it was in earlier versions of InDesign. Here's my best guess:

I looked it up in Real World InDesign CS2 (Kvern & Blatner). It lists it in the index on page 634, and here it is. Referring to manual trapping, they say: "We have to stress the importance of the Weight Changes Bounding Box option on the Stroke palette menu. You cannot create traps when this option is off, so you'll have to make sure it's turned on as you follow any of the procedures in this section...."

But I think that's an error, because it's not on the Stroke palette menus of either InDesign CS or CS2. It probably refers to earlier versions but was never corrected.

Then it occurred to me that it was probably unnecessary because of the Align Stroke option that was added in InDesign CS, allowing you to put the stroke outside the path, or inside the path, as well as centered on the path.

[jon_gallet@adobeforums.com]

OK that makes sense. Thanks.

[David_Blatner@adobeforums.com]

Oops. I think Steve is right: Both the CIB and our book failed to remove the discussion of that feature. Drat. We'll fix that. But even more amusing is our focus on creating traps using this feature! When was the last time we built our own traps using overprinted strokes? Sometime in the 18th century? Seems that long ago. Fortunately, most of the rest of the book is in the 21st century. ;)

Best wishes,
David Blatner

[AlFerrari]

So now there are two editions in print promulgating that wrong information. Doesn't Peachpit have a process in place of proofreading FOR CONTENT?

Al Ferrari

[Steve_Werner@adobeforums.com]

Al,

Speaking as a fellow author, authors are responsible for fact-checking their book and for getting tech editors who help them with the process. Our Peachpit editors can't be as up-to-speed on the very complex and fast-changing technology we all work with. They work with us on help of shape the book to be more readable and understandable, help us with copyediting, etc.

But when you have a 900-page book, it IS hard to keep it up-to-date between version changes.

Steve

[Peter_Gold@adobeforums.com]

With all due respect, Steve, one significant reason people buy ostensibly-authoritative guide books by "industry-leading experts," dedicated to complicated and technologically-advanced products, is that they purport to offer accurate and up-to-date information. Even further, buyers purchase new editions of the books for information on new releases of the products they describe.

Considering the high prices of these short-lived books, purchasers deserve to get the accurate information they expect in the books, and also at diligently-maintained and painstakingly-updated book information sites.

Perhaps publishers should participate more in the ongoing responsibility and process of correcting errors and omissions. One step towards improving the results for customers would be for authors and publishers to participate in a proactive process of posting updates and corrections to a service like VersionTracker.
________________
Regards,

Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

Peter,

are you an author yourself? Or is this the voice of a customer?

Thanks
Gerald

[Peter_Gold@adobeforums.com]

Hi, Gerald:

I'm a customer who's bought lots of books that have errors, only a few of which have corrections posted on the publishers' sites.

To be clear, some errors are due to changes in the software that occurred after publication, which I agree are very difficult to keep up with. However, others are the kind of proofreading errors that result from too-few pairs of fresh eyes reviewing and keystroking the content. This is sometimes called user testing.

For example, one respected book I'm looking at currently, has many instances which describe positioning the cursor or insertion point "left," "right," "before," and "after" are reversed. I'm dyslexic, so this is an extra challenge to sort out.

In another book, I've had to unpuzzle the switched captions that describe illustrations of effects and actions.

I've long-since stopped sending in corrections because so few of them turned up in publisher-site errata.

It's not about perfection - it's about follow-through.
________________
Regards,

Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

Peter,

It's not about perfection - it's about follow-through.




I never looked (so I don't know which publishers have these beasts), but you are right that a correction web-page for each book would be a good thing.

I just wondered.

Thank you
Gerald

[David_Blatner@adobeforums.com]

Peter,
I can understand your frustration with buying a book that has an error in it, but I'm a little surprised that you're so aghast about it. We try very hard to keep our books up to date and publish the best information about InDesign that we can. Curiously, it's often much harder to catch all the features that are removed from a program than it is to add the new ones. This one slipped by us and I apologize for that. I'm glad it was only a minor feature and not the one that instructed how to perform CPR with InDesign.

Best wishes,
David Blatner
[url]www.indesignsecrets.com[/url]
co-author, "Real World InDesign CS2," "InDesign Breakthroughs," and others

[JohnO@adobeforums.com]

>I'm glad it was only a minor feature and not the one that instructed how to

>perform CPR with InDesign.

<snork> I have to get a copy, just to find that. :-)

I'm just taking a break from evaluating a long list of "typos and errors"
submitted by the user of one of our books. We take these reports seriously,
however this list has a very high rate of false errors. The list writer has
confused instructional design and "what's best in MY classroom" with errors.
I can see how some publishers might get frustrated with piles of such lists,
and tend to ignore them. OTOH, I think in most cases the lists never make it
back to the authors or editors for a variety of reasons.

-John O

[Peter_Gold@adobeforums.com]

Hi, David:

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't singling out you or your terrific books, though it might seem so, because this thread branched from a specific issue in your book.

You're right about it being harder to check for a lost feature rather than an added one; it's somewhat like trying to prove a negative, I suppose. This is one argument for using content-management methods for content. Comparing a database of a product's topics from one release to another would help spot additions and subtractions.

As far as the "Easter egg" InDesign CPR technique not being documented, it's probably better to skip it. CPR in the wrong hands, like InDesign itself, can be dangerous. However, for unconventional surgical techniques, you might look up William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch."
________________
Regards,

Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[AlFerrari]

Curiously, it's often much harder to catch all the features that are removed
from a program than it is to add the new ones.




But David, this is not a case of a feature being removed. Instead it is a case of a feature having its name and user interface changed. Your books do discuss the feature under its new name and user interface. So your error, as I see it, was not that of failing to notice the removal of a feature from the earlier version, but of not removing your earlier edition's comments on the feature from the new edition.

My copy of the CS2 edition has just arrived, and turning to the topic of InDesign's Color Management, which I am currently studying, I find on page 665 that a discussion of the Print Dialog makes reference to Figure 10-23 which is in fact a screen shot of the Export Adobe PDF dialog. Clearly an unfortunate placement of the wrong figure, but it is of no help to the person trying to master the details of the Print process. Ironically, the discussion of this topic in the CS edition referred to the correct figure.

In view of these errors, I think Peter Gold makes an excellent suggestion in #11 of having a web page with corrections to errors as they are found. So in addition to correcting the erroneous reference to an option called 'Weight Changes Bounding Box', the site would provide the correct Figure 10-23.

Al Ferrari

[Peter_Gold@adobeforums.com]

Hi, Al:

Regarding your comment:

Instead it is a case of a feature having its name and user interface changed.




A good example of documenting this is in the sections of David Pogue's Mac OS X Missing Manuals on "where did 'xxx' go?" for new Mac OS X versions, and the Mac - Windows / Windows - Mac dictionary that helps newcomers reuse their old habits in the new environment.
________________
Regards,

Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices