🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11294@ucbvax> jenny@ucbvax (Kathryn Hargreaves) writes:

>First, a minor quibble:  WYSIWYG systems are not good for
>professional quality advertising, signs, and so forth, as
>Brian Reid mentions in his list. At least, no type shop I
>know is going to start using Macintoshes or Suns or the like
>to start producing their ads.

I guess you and I hang out in different advertising shops.  All of the
with-it, cutting-edge graphics shops that I know of use Macs and Suns and
stuff like that right now. I know of 3 professional graphics shops that have
*no other equipment* than a few Macs, a LaserWriter, and a stat camera.
Admittedly these shops aren't doing corporate annual reports, but they are
making truckloads of money doing newspaper ads, political flyers, direct
mail, and other bread-and-butter applications.

I predict that any type shop that DOESN'T use WYSIWYG systems to some extent
is going to be out of business in 3 to 5 years. Even today it is difficult
to remain competitive against the Macs and the Suns when all you are using
is knives and wax. Admittedly top-quality color still cannot be done online
except with ultra-expensive Sci-Tek equipment.
    
    >Second, yes, systems that combine the compiler approach and
    >the interactive one exist---in practically every typesetting
    >shop. The Compugraphic, Varityper, Alphatype, et. al. systems
    >have input files that look similar to the compiler
    >formatters---but they also have dedicated displays (at much
    >higher resolutions than Suns or such, for the most part.) so
    >the operator can see what (s)he is getting before using the
    >2400 dpi typesetter to print it.
    
Minor quibble: I don't believe you about the "much higher resolution than
Suns". Most of the pros use the same CRT that Sun uses, or at least a
green-phosphor variation of it. To get a CRT that is physically capable of
"much higher resolution" requires an order of magnitude more dollars. There
exist CRTs that can show 4000 x 4000 pixels on the screen (4 times the
resolution of a Sun) but the CRT's alone (never mind the electronics and
computer to connect to them) cost upwards of $10,000.

Major quibble: I don't give a hoot what commands you type to change the
screen. The pro systems are all shackled by people who have spent years
typing "quad left" "leading 14 points" "hanging indent" "go", and they want
to keep typing that. If what you see on the screen is a mockup of what the
page is going to look like, then you have a pure WYSIWYG system regardless
of what you type to it. Almost by definition. But the commercial systems
absolutely cannot meet my criteria for a good compiler-model system that I
posted earlier (automatic renumbering and cross-referencing, automatic
reformatting into different styles, etc.). If you think you have seen one
that can, please tell me exactly what it is and I will get on the next jet
plane to go look at it.

Closing observation: Kodak has recently started going for the throat of the
professional type shops. They are aggressively marketing an in-plant
publishing system that uses a repackaged Imagen laser printer and Sun
workstation, both sporting new Kodak nameplates, that will let companies
work without the benefit of pro type shops. I think this is wonderful,
because it might finally kick the moribund, low-tech graphic arts industry
in the behind hard enough to get them to move into the 1980's. I don't think
the Kodak system by itself is good enough to do this kick, but it's great to
see those salesmen out there pounding the pavement trying.
-- 
	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA