Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
In editing do I work in "hard copy?" What is it?
|
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
Hard copy is a physical - rather than an electronic - medium; like a tablet
of stone. -- Enjoy, Tony "pammrick" Oregon Coast wrote in message ... In editing do I work in "hard copy?" What is it? |
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
"Hard copy" means the document on paper. Most editing is done on-
screen these days, but since files can get corrupted, or saved without renaming, it's always a good idea to have an author's hard copy on hand for reference. (Apparently pdf's are now easily altered, which kind of defeats the purpose of pdf's, so they might not be an adequate substitute for a paper copy of a ms.) On Mar 21, 3:18*am, "Tony Jollans" My forename at my surname dot com wrote: Hard copy is a physical - rather than an electronic - medium; like a tablet of stone. -- Enjoy, Tony "pammrick" Oregon Coast wrote in message ... In editing do I work in "hard copy?" What is it?- |
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
In article 72a578d4-175b-4972-b046-0eeb856bb780
@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, says... "Hard copy" means the document on paper. Most editing is done on- screen these days, but since files can get corrupted, or saved without renaming, it's always a good idea to have an author's hard copy on hand for reference. For what it's worth, a lot of professional writers and editors, myself included, find it difficult to edit on-screen. Working from a printed copy is a lot more accurate, although certainly less efficient. -- Peter Aitken Author, MS Word for Medical and Technical Writers www.tech-word.com |
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
There are publishers that still let you do that? University of Chicago
Press, Ohio State UP, Walter de Gruyter, and the one where I used to be an employee (which was responsible for my switch from Mac/ FrameMaker [Word for the easy stuff, or stuff that had to be shared] to PC/Word) don't! On Mar 21, 10:40*am, Peter A wrote: In article 72a578d4-175b-4972-b046-0eeb856bb780 @z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, says... "Hard copy" means the document on paper. Most editing is done on- screen these days, but since files can get corrupted, or saved without renaming, it's always a good idea to have an author's hard copy on hand for reference. For what it's worth, a lot of professional writers and editors, myself included, find it difficult to edit on-screen. Working from a printed copy is a lot more accurate, although certainly less efficient. -- Peter Aitken Author, MS Word for Medical and Technical Writerswww.tech-word.com |
#6
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
In article 91a16064-dbb5-475f-85c6-
, says... Newsgroups: microsoft.public.word.docmanagement There are publishers that still let you do that? University of Chicago Press, Ohio State UP, Walter de Gruyter, and the one where I used to be an employee (which was responsible for my switch from Mac/ FrameMaker [Word for the easy stuff, or stuff that had to be shared] to PC/Word) don't! Well no, duh! You have to transfer your paper edits to the electronic file. -- Peter Aitken Author, MS Word for Medical and Technical Writers www.tech-word.com |
#7
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
Double the opportunity for making mistakes, and considerably
lengthening the time taken! Ah, but if you're billing by the hour ... On Mar 21, 12:47*pm, Peter A wrote: In article 91a16064-dbb5-475f-85c6- , says... Newsgroups: microsoft.public.word.docmanagement There are publishers that still let you do that? University of Chicago Press, Ohio State UP, Walter de Gruyter, and the one where I used to be an employee (which was responsible for my switch from Mac/ FrameMaker [Word for the easy stuff, or stuff that had to be shared] to PC/Word) don't! Well no, duh! You have to transfer your paper edits to the electronic file. |
#8
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
Hello grammatim
grammatim wrote: Double the opportunity for making mistakes, and considerably lengthening the time taken! Ah, but if you're billing by the hour ... how you _edit_ has nothing to do with how you send the document off to the publisher. I do most editing on-screen, but certain types of things you're much more likely to spot on a physical printout compared to a screen, however large and expensive. This applies to copy-editing, and pagination/justification control, as well as estimation of a new "layout" (read: template). 2cents Robert -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MSFT | \ / | MVP | Scientific Reports X Against HTML | for | with Word? / \ in e-mail & news | Word | http://www.masteringword.eu/ |
#9
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
On Mar 22, 6:03*pm, "Robert M. Franz (RMF)"
wrote: Hello grammatim grammatim wrote: Double the opportunity for making mistakes, and considerably lengthening the time taken! Ah, but if you're billing by the hour ... how you _edit_ has nothing to do with how you send the document off to the publisher. I do most editing on-screen, but certain types of things you're much more likely to spot on a physical printout compared to a screen, however large and expensive. This applies to copy-editing, and pagination/justification control, as well as estimation of a new "layout" (read: template). Those last items aren't part of a copyeditor's job, but a typesetter's. A proofreader _might_ be asked to comment, but usually the design department gets highly offended when the editorial department dares to make a comment. (I've been doing this professionally for 36 years.) |
#10
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
word 2003
Well, I do all the bits and pieces up to the whole nine yards--typesetting,
copyediting, proofreading, book design and layout, etc., and I agree that, while copyediting is much easier onscreen, there are some errors that are much easier to see in hard copy. I used to do all copyediting on hard copy for that reason, and because I wanted to add comments to the manuscript, either in the margins or on Post-its, but of late I am mostly given an electronic copy, so I usually edit with Track Changes enabled (if the client insists) but in Final view so I'm not distracted by the markup and post my comments to a separate commentary file. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "grammatim" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 6:03 pm, "Robert M. Franz (RMF)" wrote: Hello grammatim grammatim wrote: Double the opportunity for making mistakes, and considerably lengthening the time taken! Ah, but if you're billing by the hour ... how you _edit_ has nothing to do with how you send the document off to the publisher. I do most editing on-screen, but certain types of things you're much more likely to spot on a physical printout compared to a screen, however large and expensive. This applies to copy-editing, and pagination/justification control, as well as estimation of a new "layout" (read: template). Those last items aren't part of a copyeditor's job, but a typesetter's. A proofreader _might_ be asked to comment, but usually the design department gets highly offended when the editorial department dares to make a comment. (I've been doing this professionally for 36 years.) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Word Viewer 2003 does not display/print properly a Word 2003 doc | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Outlook 2003 Cant send e-mail from Excel 2003 or word 2003 | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Word 2003 - Problem with page template when opening Word 2003 | Page Layout | |||
How to Export Auto Correct File From Word 2003 to Word 2003 | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Exchange 2003 - Outlook 2003 - Word 2003 mail merge | Mailmerge |