🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32294@sri-unix.SRI.COM>, maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
> In article <7650004@hpwrce.HP.COM> howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
| |since most engineers see publications by the ton, which means they
| |have gone through half the educational process for book design right
| |there. On the other hand, you probably have not seen nearly as many
| |circuit designs. That just means you haven't yet got the background
| |in their field that they have in yours. It doesn't mean you couldn't
| |learn.
| Well, Howard, lemme tell you. I was married to a circuit designer,
| one of the best, I might add, in the analog realm, and I've seen a
| few circuits in my time.  But that, I think is really beside the
| point. I've also seen a number of DaVincis and Picassos, and that
| hasn't made me a painter. Mere exposure doesn't make an education.

Well, Howard, reading a bad book doesn't make you a good writer. If
you come from the UNIX/troff school, you have probably gotten used
to one of the worst default document designs ever to be perpetrated
upon the unsuspecting public. Troff uses 10 point times roman,
justified, with a 6-1/2 inch line length.
	1) Times Roman doesn't reproduce well on laser printers at
	   300 dpi. (Troff was intended for use with a typesetter.)
	2) Justified type is harder to read than ragged right.
	3) Optimum line length is 39-52 characters rather than the
           80 or so you get with 10 point TR in 6.5 inch lines.
	4) If you're writing for a European audience, sans serif
           type is easier to read. In the US, serif is easier. (It
           depends on what you were brought up on.)

| |Of course, there is a lot more objectivity to circuit design than 
| |there is to book design. I needed to learn all about components and
| |manufacturing processes and materials to learn how to design a circuit,
| |as well as how to lay out the drawings and present them for publication.
| 
| You've described several separate aspects of electrical engineering
| practice here. Nothing says all aspects have to be performed by the
| same person. In fact, final drawings will be done by a technician or
| a draftsman, not the engineer, in many cases, yes?
| And the technician, not the engineer, will do the breadboard.
| And the production line will turn it into a product.
| See what I mean? Learning something about a task doesn't make you
| the person best suited to do it really well.

Well Howard, since 25% or Americans are functionally illiterate, and
90% of Americans don't read (even though they apparently can), the
fact that you seem to be able to write in sentences and paragraphs
may indeed make you an expert at something -- but not at book
design. That also doesn't mean you have anything to say.

Your arrogant statement that there is a lot more objectivity to
circuit design than there is to book design is a good example of a
well constructed sentence without intelligent content. When I have
attempted to convince circuit designers that 10 point Times Roman on
a 6-1/2 inch line wasn't optimum for reading, they insisted that
their documents weren't *professional* unless they looked just like
the other documents they had seen. Isn't it interesting that high
tech professionals were more interested in conformity of appearance
than they were in communication of ideas? Do you suppose that they
didn't really have anything to say? The ability to copy bad designs
doesn't make you a good book designer or a good circuit designer. 

| |But all I needed to learn to design a book were a few minor details
| |about the limitations of the press and bindery, what fonts
| |were available in what sizes and on which typesetting devices.
| |The rest were subjective "I know what I like" kinds of art decisions.
| 
| Yes, well, you're giving a perfect example of what I've been talking
| about. Many of those "art" decisions aren't subjective at all;
| they're based on objective measures of readability and retention.
| They're based on aesthetics, and graphic design principles,
| not personal preference. Most of those principles are just as
| objective, in their own way, as Maxwell's laws. From what you say,
| you learned ZILCH about publication design, and you think you know
| all you need to know.  So you're what I call a danger.  You're one
| of the people who may be designing publications but probably shouldn't be.

Well Howard, I think you've missed a few minor details. Based on the
personality that's showing through your writing, I suspect that your
circuit designs often miss a few minor details too -- it goes with
the kind of personality that speaks with ignorance.

| |What I am saying, Valerie, is that your profession isn't a hard one
| |for an engineer to learn. Most of us who use DTP have already learned
| |it. Probably as well, or better, than most book designers. And I speak
| |from experience on that, not just idle speculation.
| 
| You haven't learned it, based on what you say here. You've learned
| enough to MAYBE be a production coordinator. Typical technical
| arrogance.

Well Howard, based on my experience, you're one of the very few
people in the whole world who can write in sentences and
paragraphs. That indicates a well above average intelligence. You
ought to be smart enough to have some idea what you don't know.

| If you're an engineer, and you deal with publications, do your
| clients a favor, will you, and sign up for a decent graphic design course?
| U.C. Santa Cruz has an excellent extension program. Funny, I think if
| I wanted to be a circuit designer, goddess forbid, I'd enroll in
| some classes myself...
| 
| Valerie Maslak

And Howard, you might consider a Dale Carnegie course as well.

Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi 

I believe in absolute freedom of the press.
        Pax Probiscus!  Sturgeon's Law (Revised): 98.89%
        of everything is drek (1.11% is peanut butter).
        Rarely able to send an email reply sucessfully.
        The opinions expressed here are not necessarily  
Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.