Is Publisher the right tool for my book?

[Top Spin]

I want to write a beginning piano method. It will have a lot of
graphics. Most of them will be examples of music from a few bars, to
scales, to complete pieces. I will be creating the music in a notation
program called Mozart. I am also creating some line art (keyboards,
circle of fifths, etc.). I am currently using Visio for that.

Both Mozart and Visio can export images in a variety of formats. I am
currently using EMF.

I have a good start on this using Word (2000). I have used Word for a
long time and am fairly familiar with it. I am having some trouble
managing the graphics. Someone suggested that I am using the wrong
tool for the job.

I used PageMaker a long time ago. At that time, I was told that
PageMaker was primarily a "page" program, rather than a "document"
program. You could put anything anywhere on a page, but when you start
having lots of pages and you want a document processor, PageMaker
isn't good at that.

I have Office 2000 and will be shortly upgrading to Office 2003, which
includes Publisher.

Would Publisher be better at this than Word? Please keep in mind
that I am not a professional writer. I am mostly looking for ease of
use and reliability. The only real complexity in the book will be the
graphics.

 

[Chuck Davis]

I want to write a beginning piano method. It will have a lot of
graphics. Most of them will be examples of music from a few bars, to
scales, to complete pieces. I will be creating the music in a notation
program called Mozart. I am also creating some line art (keyboards,
circle of fifths, etc.). I am currently using Visio for that.

Both Mozart and Visio can export images in a variety of formats. I am
currently using EMF.

I have a good start on this using Word (2000). I have used Word for a
long time and am fairly familiar with it. I am having some trouble
managing the graphics. Someone suggested that I am using the wrong
tool for the job.

I used PageMaker a long time ago. At that time, I was told that
PageMaker was primarily a "page" program, rather than a "document"
program. You could put anything anywhere on a page, but when you start
having lots of pages and you want a document processor, PageMaker
isn't good at that.

I have Office 2000 and will be shortly upgrading to Office 2003, which
includes Publisher.

Would Publisher be better at this than Word? Please keep in mind
that I am not a professional writer. I am mostly looking for ease of
use and reliability. The only real complexity in the book will be the
graphics.

Publisher is for desktop publishing. Word is a word processor.

Set it up for a booklet, i.e., multiples of 4 pages... I have printed an 80
page booklet with Publisher.

Some Office Editions don't include Publisher, i.e, Office Standard Edition.
Check before you buy.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

I used PageMaker a long time ago. At that time, I was told that
PageMaker was primarily a "page" program, rather than a "document"
program. You could put anything anywhere on a page, but when you start
having lots of pages and you want a document processor, PageMaker
isn't good at that.

Um, wrong. Pagemaker is a page layout program; you write the text with
a text edit/word processor somewhere else, you design your graphics
somewhere else (bitmaps in Photoshop, vector art in Illustrator) and
then you ASSEMBLE the pieces on the page with Pagemaker. And you
assemble as many pages as you like in the document.

Would Publisher be better at this than Word? Please keep in mind
that I am not a professional writer. I am mostly looking for ease of
use and reliability. The only real complexity in the book will be the
graphics.

If your intent is for this publication to stay on your computer and
never go anywhere else, and to be printed on your own local desktop
printer, that's fine.

If you have even the remotest thought of handing this publication to
someone else for any kind of printing anywhere else, Publisher is the
wrong tool for the job.

 

[Top Spin]

Publisher is for desktop publishing. Word is a word processor.

Yes, but what does that really mean? I tried to describe my task.
Would Word or Publisher be the better tool?

Set it up for a booklet, i.e., multiples of 4 pages... I have printed an 80
page booklet with Publisher.

Multiples of 4 pages? I'm not sure what that is.

I can see this going well beyond 80 pages.

Some Office Editions don't include Publisher, i.e, Office Standard Edition.
Check before you buy.

Yes, I have Office Professional.

 

[Top Spin]

Um, wrong. Pagemaker is a page layout program; you write the text with
a text edit/word processor somewhere else, you design your graphics
somewhere else (bitmaps in Photoshop, vector art in Illustrator) and
then you ASSEMBLE the pieces on the page with Pagemaker. And you
assemble as many pages as you like in the document.

That's sorta what I meant to say. It sounds like Pagemaker is trhe
wrong tool for my task. What about Publisher? Is it also intended that
the text will be written eslewhere?

If your intent is for this publication to stay on your computer and
never go anywhere else, and to be printed on your own local desktop
printer, that's fine.

If you have even the remotest thought of handing this publication to
someone else for any kind of printing anywhere else, Publisher is the
wrong tool for the job.

Why? Because would be in the wrong format?

Would Word be better if I ever plan to have it published?

 

[James Hahn]

The number of graphics is probably not the determining factor. Publisher
would be appropriate if you need comprehensive text and image layout
facilities. If your document has a relatively simple text layout,
interspersed with images, then WORD is quite suitable, and if you are
familiar with it already then your production rate will be much faster. You
haven't mentioned what problem you are having with the images, but I would
suggest you first look at whether or not they can be resolved.

Firstly, check that you are creating your images in an appropriate format
and with the appropriate size. WORD has problems with large graphics files,
and your files might be much larger than you need them to be. TIF may be
better than EPS.

Secondly, consider linking your images rather than embedding them.

The WORD newsgroups can supply more specific assistance. If you find a
suitable solution then I would say stick with WORD.

 

[Top Spin]

The number of graphics is probably not the determining factor. Publisher
would be appropriate if you need comprehensive text and image layout
facilities. If your document has a relatively simple text layout,
interspersed with images, then WORD is quite suitable, and if you are
familiar with it already then your production rate will be much faster. You
haven't mentioned what problem you are having with the images, but I would
suggest you first look at whether or not they can be resolved.

There are a couple of problems:

1. Image management.

My current plan is to create & manuipulate the graphic images in
Visio. Some will be created in Visio and others in Mozart and then
imported into Visio to be annotated.

I would like to be able to keep the images in Visio and insert a link
to them in Word. I was able to sorta get that working using Paste
Special, but it kept failing. Somone suggested that a DTP progrtam
would have better image handling capabilities.

If that fails, then I have to save each image as a separate file and
use Insert Picture From File to get it (or a link to it) into Word.
That works, but it means hundreds of little files to manage.

2. Document size.

I started out taking the default file formats, which I think was BMP.
I have since started using EMF and the file size has shrunk
considerably -- most of the time. But there are few tools in Word for
manipulating images or even disclosing what it is that I have. It was
suggested to me that a DTP would do a better job of that.

Firstly, check that you are creating your images in an appropriate format
and with the appropriate size. WORD has problems with large graphics files,
and your files might be much larger than you need them to be. TIF may be
better than EPS.

I don't think I have been using EPS or TIF, mostly BMP and EMF, I
think.

Secondly, consider linking your images rather than embedding them.

I tried that, but, again, Word is not too good at helping me
understand what I have there.

The WORD newsgroups can supply more specific assistance. If you find a
suitable solution then I would say stick with WORD.

The folks on the Word newsgroups couldn't solve the Paste Special
problem and it was one of them that suggested I look at DTP programs.

Maybe the problem is Visio. Perhaps I should look for a different
graphics program.

 

[Chuck Davis]

That's sorta what I meant to say. It sounds like Pagemaker is trhe
wrong tool for my task. What about Publisher? Is it also intended that
the text will be written eslewhere?


Why? Because would be in the wrong format?

Would Word be better if I ever plan to have it published?

Depending on the publishing firm's wishes, they may request all text be in
MS Word. This was the case in my book Modern Cabinetmaking.
http://www.moderncabinetmaking.com They then run the text and all else
through QuarkXPress. http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/overview.cfm

 

[Top Spin]

Depending on the publishing firm's wishes, they may request all text be in
MS Word. This was the case in my book Modern Cabinetmaking.
http://www.moderncabinetmaking.com They then run the text and all else
through QuarkXPress. http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/overview.cfm

Wow! You wrote Modern Cabinetmaking? My son-in-law was thinking about
getting into woodworking and I bought that book for him a year or two
ago. I think he liked it.

 

[Chuck Davis]

Wow! You wrote Modern Cabinetmaking? My son-in-law was thinking about
getting into woodworking and I bought that book for him a year or two
ago. I think he liked it.

The book has sold over 31,000 copies! At 75 years, I have done many things
during my life. In spite of the fact that I have retired from IBM 1990, and
the cabinet business in 2000, I am still active, swim 1 mile every other
day, and walk 4 miles on the intervening days. I currently sit on the board
of two organizations, and am a candidate for our Community Association's
Board of Directors (5,000 homes).

 

[James Hahn]

You don't have any practical choice except to maintain the images as
separate files. In fact, you may end up keeping two copies - one as the
original source, and one in publication format (ie, as inserted into the
document). Whether you manipulate them in Visio or some other application
makes no difference, except perhaps that different applications have
different features for locating or cataloguing images. Even if you embed
the images, best practice requires that you do not discard the original.
Also, a logical file naming rule will help considerably. Otherwise, for
sure you will find yourself recreating images you thought you had finished
with. In this respect, there's no difference between a DTP and a word
processor.

There should be no problem using Paste Special to paste a link to a saved
file. If your problems were with linking, a consistent file organization
should help.

I misread EMF for EPS. If you can use EMF, then do so - it will save a lot
of space. However, screen captures won't be suitable for EMF. For these,
make sure the image size is no larger than what you need, and make sure the
number of colours is no greater than needed. If monochrome is suitable, make
sure the images are converted before importing into WORD. BMP will look
large on disk, but a suitable size monochrome BMP will be quite manageable
in WORD.

Are you dividing your document into chapters? - that will help with file
sizes.

Don't try to manipulate your images in WORD (or Publisher, for that matter).
Get then into publishable format using your graphics application before you
insert them.

Visio may be overkill for what you need to do to the images, although I
doubt that it would be the cause of problems. Once you have created and
saved your images, the application you used to do it shouldn't matter. Very
often, an image will need to be manipulated in more than one application
before it looks correct.
--

 

[Top Spin]

You don't have any practical choice except to maintain the images as
separate files. In fact, you may end up keeping two copies - one as the
original source, and one in publication format (ie, as inserted into the
document). Whether you manipulate them in Visio or some other application
makes no difference, except perhaps that different applications have
different features for locating or cataloguing images. Even if you embed
the images, best practice requires that you do not discard the original.
Also, a logical file naming rule will help considerably. Otherwise, for
sure you will find yourself recreating images you thought you had finished
with. In this respect, there's no difference between a DTP and a word
processor.

Yep, correct on all counts. Visio has no features for cataloging
images.

There should be no problem using Paste Special to paste a link to a saved
file. If your problems were with linking, a consistent file organization
should help.

I think the problem was with trying to link to an object inside a
Visio document, rather than I separate EMF file. I'm using Insert |
Picture | From file with the Link option and it's working well. One of
the apps is not letting go of the file so I can't update it more than
once without closing everything, but that's just trhe usual with
Office apps.

I misread EMF for EPS. If you can use EMF, then do so - it will save a lot
of space. However, screen captures won't be suitable for EMF. For these,
make sure the image size is no larger than what you need, and make sure the
number of colours is no greater than needed. If monochrome is suitable, make
sure the images are converted before importing into WORD. BMP will look
large on disk, but a suitable size monochrome BMP will be quite manageable
in WORD.

No screen captures. All line art.

Are you dividing your document into chapters? - that will help with file
sizes.
Yep

Don't try to manipulate your images in WORD (or Publisher, for that matter).

No, I'm not.

Get then into publishable format using your graphics application before you
insert them.
Right.

Visio may be overkill for what you need to do to the images, although I
doubt that it would be the cause of problems. Once you have created and
saved your images, the application you used to do it shouldn't matter. Very
often, an image will need to be manipulated in more than one application
before it looks correct.

Visio is just about right and I already have it and am somewhat
familiar with it. I just with it did a better job with saving separate
files in other that VSD format.

Thanks

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Um, wrong. Pagemaker is a page layout program; you write the text with
a text edit/word processor somewhere else, you design your graphics
somewhere else (bitmaps in Photoshop, vector art in Illustrator) and
then you ASSEMBLE the pieces on the page with Pagemaker. And you
assemble as many pages as you like in the document.

That's sorta what I meant to say. It sounds like Pagemaker is trhe
wrong tool for my task.[/QUOTE]

no, Pagemaker isn't the wrong tool for your task.

You deal with the graphics as graphic elements somewhere else. You name
and otherwise organize them in your file system. You place the graphics
in the Pagemaker publication--which can be many, many pages long--in
whatever order and at whatever size you like. You place or type the
text around those images.

It is a much more precise tool than Word for a task like this.

Why? Because would be in the wrong format?

Publisher is designed for documents that you print out locally on your
desktop printer. It is not designed in any meaningful way for you to
hand off to a commercial printer.

Word would not be better. In terms of handing the project off to be
printed, Word and Publisher are equally bad.

 

[Top Spin]

That's sorta what I meant to say. It sounds like Pagemaker is trhe
wrong tool for my task.

no, Pagemaker isn't the wrong tool for your task.

You deal with the graphics as graphic elements somewhere else. You name
and otherwise organize them in your file system. You place the graphics
in the Pagemaker publication--which can be many, many pages long--in
whatever order and at whatever size you like. You place or type the
text around those images.

It is a much more precise tool than Word for a task like this.[/QUOTE]

Precise placement of either the images or the text is not a
requirement. I probably won't even be doing any flow around or wrap
around. Most of the images will be as wide as or almost as wide as the
page. The format will be text, image, text, image, ...

Publisher is designed for documents that you print out locally on your
desktop printer. It is not designed in any meaningful way for you to
hand off to a commercial printer.

Word would not be better. In terms of handing the project off to be
printed, Word and Publisher are equally bad.

I'm not sure I understand why - for my needs.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Word would not be better. In terms of handing the project off to be
printed, Word and Publisher are equally bad.

I'm not sure I understand why - for my needs.[/QUOTE]

You don't need to understand why, any more than I need to understand why
a surgeon prefers one instrument over another.

But when a brain surgeon tells me he needs to use a certain instrument,
I believe him.

 

[printerdan]

Having followed this growing thread, all should consider that Top Spin has
no foreseeable plans to commercially publish this work, and that he has
existing document(s) in a form suitable to his budget and expertise.
Should the need arise, he would be able to produce a .pdf file which would
be a safer hand-off format given the nature of his graphic files and build.
It would seem that TS is creating that which he needs without obstacles,
organizing his graphics, attentive to the file types supported in each
application. Word and MSPub, with their limitations, are streamlined enough
to create a black & white document without frills.
TS, keep working in what works for you, should you ever need to write a file
suitable for commercial print, up to 5 free .pdf file can be written using
the links below.
http://createpdf.adobe.com/index.pl/4120000121.72911?BP=IE
https://createpdf.adobe.com/cgi-country.pl?BP=IE&LOC=en_US

I'm not sure I understand why - for my needs.

You don't need to understand why, any more than I need to understand why
a surgeon prefers one instrument over another.

But when a brain surgeon tells me he needs to use a certain instrument,
I believe him.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Top Spin]

I'm not sure I understand why - for my needs.

You don't need to understand why, any more than I need to understand why
a surgeon prefers one instrument over another.

But when a brain surgeon tells me he needs to use a certain instrument,
I believe him.[/QUOTE]

Let's see, here... Who is the brain surgeon in this scenario?

 

[Ed Bennett]

Publisher is designed for documents that you print out locally on your
desktop printer. It is not designed in any meaningful way for you to
hand off to a commercial printer.

Oh no?

Word would not be better. In terms of handing the project off to be
printed, Word and Publisher are equally bad.

In the context of book publishing, the publisher would have their own ideas
as to how to lay the document out. They would probably want text in Word,
marked up with locations of image files to use, and with the image files
supplied separately. They would then get their own typesetters to transfer
the text into their own application (probably QuarkXPress or InDesign) and
add the images in the appropriate places.

However, if you are looking to send direct to a commercial printer to print,
Publisher 2003 (possibly plus Acrobat) would be the best way to go.

If you're looking to publish on the web as a PDF or just print out on your
desktop printer, then Publisher or Word would be equally good - whichever
you feel most comfortable in.

 

[Brian Kvalheim [MSFT MVP]]

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
|| Publisher is designed for documents that you print out locally on
|| your desktop printer. It is not designed in any meaningful way for
|| you to hand off to a commercial printer.

Ugh...I thought you knew better.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
http://www.publishermvps.com

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

 

[RSD99]

FWIW #1:
Elmo is correct, in both of his statements.

FWIW #2:
For the benefit of the other readers of this forum who might not be
familiar with the gentleman making this posting, "Brian Kvalheim [MSFT
MVP]" was (and may still be) the 'go to guy' for the
microsoft.public.publisher.prepress newsgroup ... hosted on Micro$oft's own
servers.