Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal)
Linux Journal examines
desktop publishing using OpenOffice.org. "Desktop publishing (DP for
short) differs from word processing. In word processing, you type pages of
characters and numbers to create documents for others to read. They might
include graphics, such as tables and charts, to illustrate points made in
the text, but the goal is to create a written document to convey
information. In DP, you use graphics, along with text, to create a document
with more visual appeal. Look at any printed advertising--the graphics in
the document often are more important than the written word."
(Log in to post comments)
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 17, 2004 18:44 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] "DP for short", eh?Tacky double-entendre goes here. The customary abbreviation for Desktop Publishing is, of course, DTP, and for most of the things you use it for, a word processor will not serve. The worst thing, of course, is that you aren't likely to find this out, if you don't already know it, until it's Too Late. The tools should be subordinate to the task, and word processors simply aren't up, generally, to the things one might need to do in a generalized DTP/EP situation. Sure, there may be a (possibly pretty large) subset of stuff you can do there. But intimating to The Great Unwashed that OOo serves as a DTP tool *in the general case* is the sort of journalistic malpractice that a) I'm getting sick of, and b) LJ is, alas, all too fond of. But hell, maybe it's just me.
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 17, 2004 18:52 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] >intimating to The Great Unwashed that OOo serves as a DTP tool *in the general case* is the sort of journalistic malpractice ...I would tend to agree. OpenOffice is a wonderful package, and great at doing what it's designed for, but DTP is not one of its intended functions. Scribus is far better for this kind of thing, although it's not fully there yet either. But at least it's *designed* to do this, and has the intention of getting there (with press-quality output, etc.)
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 17, 2004 22:33 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] You can fake it, though. There are image frames, which you can link, from page to page, that simulate the text columns of a DTP package.If I was trying to do something DTP-like in OOo, I'd probably start with the Draw application rather than Writer. For simple DTP-type layouts, OOo is probably sufficient. But, yeah, that's not really what OOo is, so there is some square peg/round hole stuff going on. -Rob
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 18, 2004 4:09 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] You can fake it, though. There are image frames, which you can link, from page to page, that simulate the text columns of a DTP package.That's not the point. The quoted line here proves that the author doesn't have a clue about DTP. It's not about looking pretty: it's about adhering to typographic conventions and ideas that have evolved over literally centuries, that make for well-designed, well-spaced, readable documents. A side-effect is that the documents do look good, but that's not from pretty pictures (necessarily), it's from hundreds of fine details. Of free software packages, I think only TeX does this (Knuth wrote it single-handedly because he wasn't satisfied with the way his publisher was typesetting his math, but it's also by far the best free typesetter around for plain text). If you read the TeXbook, you realise just how much detail has gone into the thing. Users glancing at a TeX document (or a professionally typeset document) can immediately see how much nicer than it looks than a word processor output, but if you learn some of the rules about spacing, kerning, etc you can actually spot the things that make a MS Word document look bad. And OO is basically in the MS Word category. Doing DTP with it is a contradiction.
Let's Put the "T" Back in DP Posted May 18, 2004 8:30 UTC (Tue) by horen (subscriber, #2514) [Link] If I may chime in with a slightly off-topic (but not off-color) comment: as one who spent 12 years as a technical writer, before making a major career change and spending the next 16 as a *nix systems administrator, the introduction of DTP/WP packages (initially Interleaf and FrameMaker, but now OO, M$ Word, and others) forced technical writers to become ersatz graphic artists and production staff. DTP/WP is "sexy", with its different fonts, flowing text, and all that. Save "sexy" for your SO, and don't demand that your technical writers become desktop publishers (and avoid technical writers who pitch themselves as desktop publishers). Instead, demand that your technical writers be *technical* and be *writers*, and either have your in-house graphics staff to the DTP, or outsource it.Just another $0.02, from a guy who's happier as a sys admin.
Let's Put the "T" Back in DP Posted May 18, 2004 21:46 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] *Certainly* we don't want our tech writers to be page layout people.We have *page layout* people for that. The point here is that just because the tech writers are *not* page layout artists, that doesn't mean *you don't need* page layout artists.
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 18, 2004 11:25 UTC (Tue) by csawtell (subscriber, #986) [Link] Linux Journal has published unmitigated nonsense with this article. DP is normally the abbr. for Displaced Person. That unfortunately is exactly what this author is, totally out of his field of knowledge and expertise. In the free software world the only combination of projects which come anywhere near proper typesetting are TeX and LaTeX. Together with the LyX interactive front-end they enable mere mortals to make a pretty decent job of putting glyphs onto paper. Certainly a great deal nicer job than any of the commercial bloatware DTP products, OOo included. Just recently two remarkable projects called Scribus and Inkscape have made decent frame based layout, and quality scalable vector graphics respectively, available to the Free Sofware community. Together these two programs can produce industry standard print files. For further reading see:http://www.tug.org/
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 18, 2004 16:16 UTC (Tue) by Bruce_Byfield (guest, #21664) [Link] The real comparison for OpenOffice.org should be to a program like FrameMaker. Both are designed for doing long, complex documents rather than memos and half-page letters. Both, too, have some DTP features, but are slightly awkward and somewhat limited. In other words, they are somewhere between an office suite and a full-fledged DTP program. This is the niche where OOo really belongs.
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 18, 2004 21:52 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] I take a touch of issue with this, as well. FrameMaker is on a reasonable par with Ventura, where I grew up, and I'd be surprised (though admittedly I haven't delved really deeply into OOo) if it had the flexibility of either of them...
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 19, 2004 16:16 UTC (Wed) by Bruce_Byfield (guest, #21664) [Link] I don't know how FrameMaker compares to Ventura, but I do know that it is slightly awkward and limited compared to PageMaker, let alone to an advanced DTP tool. Don't get me wrong: I've done brochures and ads in FrameMaker, but it wouldn't be my first choice of tools.As for OOo, I am currently about half way through writing a book on the subject, so I've delved more deeply into the software than most people. Before I started the book, I would have placed OOo somewhere in the middle between MS Word and FrameMaker. Having finished my section on OOo Writer, I would now say that it is extremely closely to FrameMaker. Or, to be more exact, I'd say that you can make it close to FrameMaker with a few tweaks. For example, FrameMaker has building blocks for cross-references built in. OO doesn't, but you can create use-defined fields that give you the same functionality. Perhaps the biggest advantage FrameMaker has is that you can make text frames part of a master page, while OOo page styles don't allow that.
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 19, 2004 22:51 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] In general, I tend to divide DTP tools into two categories:Page, and Book. Ventura and Framemaker (and probably Interleaf, if that still exists) are for books. PageMaker and Quake, and probably Scibus, are more page-oriented, which makes them better for fliers, short booklets, and magazines. It sounds like you've done much more of your research than the original author did of his; rights permitting, why don't you talk to Jon about doing a feature when your book is due. :-)
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 20, 2004 16:16 UTC (Thu) by Bruce_Byfield (guest, #21664) [Link] Actually, excerpts from my book are already appearing on the LJ site, one every two weeks.
Text Frames Posted Jul 27, 2004 20:50 UTC (Tue) by johnnyb (guest, #12191) [Link] Is there a tutorial on using text frames in OpenOffice?
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 18, 2004 22:08 UTC (Tue) by mrdocs (guest, #21409) [Link] Here's my take on the article. Disclaimer: I wrote the November article in LJ, as well as being a member of the Scribus Team. Open Office is a terrific, stable versatile office suite. The drawing tools are more capable than one would initially expect and certainly you can do lightweight DTP-type tasks in OO. It has some unexpected import capabilities like EPS and PSD, but they are not 100% DTP capable yet. OO has some real strengths in long document creation/handling, which is typically not the forte of DTP type applications. As one poster has commented, a more apt comparision would be Adobe Framemaker, especially handling of publishng from databases - something which could use some in-depth coverage. The built-in PDF exporter in OO works fine, but it is certainly not something I would lay a magzine out in. The problem often is new users of DTP applications approach them as word processors and that's when the frustration begins. I would no more type a letter in Scribus, than I would try to create a highly graphical press-ready layout in Open Office. Different tools for different purposes. In the case of someone like the article author, with a bit of time, you could do the same task in Scribus probably easier and some steps would be far easier. My $ 0.02
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 19, 2004 4:20 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] Amusingly, I tend to do one-page letters in CorelDraw or PageMaker or whatever DTPish tool Ihave at hand; I *hate* word processors. Alternatively, I use vi.
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted May 25, 2004 2:12 UTC (Tue) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] I also use vi, which is probably why I use TeX (or LaTeX if I need to import photos) for one-page and two-page letters.Then again, other than to cancel credit cards, I tend to write about one letter per year... Greg
Desktop Publishing with OpenOffice.org (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 19, 2005 23:10 UTC (Wed) by ghoneim (guest, #33193) [Link] I devoloped arabtex package to add many glyphs for arabic charactersI asked ih i can do that in open office word and assign codes for that glyphs ,coloring glyphs,and the program can i use (note: i used metafont package for this task in Arabtex package) i need help about open office word features
|
|||||||||||||