In this post, I am including the complete design, layout and typesetting process under the single heading of Book Designer. Why? Because, today, the entire process is usually carried out by one person (at least in the realm of small design shops like our Five Rainbows Services and other freelance book designers).
When I suggest that you should be kind to your designer I’m not talking about sending gifts, chocolate chip cookies, or bonuses (not that that wouldn’t be nice, too). I’m talking about doing everything you can to ensure the source files you provide are really, truly, honestly FINAL. As in no more editorial changes to follow.
Typically, we read enough of a book to understand the content, audience, and tone. Then we come up with two or three alternate designs with appropriate fonts and typeset a draft of each (usually no more than the first chapter).
This is your chance to voice your preferences — what you like and don’t like. We’re usually quite willing to combine different elements from any of the draft layouts (within reason, as some really don’t combine well…so trust your designer’s recommendations on that score).
Once we’re agreed on a design and layout, please — no matter what you find in your manuscript — don’t start sending “one more little change” to be incorporated. Your one little change just might ripple forward and require rework of many subsequent pages.
Honest. I’m not making that up.
Also, sending your designer a sequence of changes of any magnitude is increasing the risk that editorial errors will creep in.
You might think that, since we flowed your Microsoft Word masterpiece into our Adobe InDesign software, it should be a simple matter of just doing that again to pick up the changes. If it were that simple and automated, you really wouldn’t need a book designer.
Once the text has been flowed into the InDesign template we created for your book, changes have to be input into that software one by one. And your MS Word page numbers will not match the typeset page numbers.
Once you receive the proof of your book’s pages (usually delivered as a PDF), you can ask for changes. However, don’t expect your designer to do that for free. We quote a price based on receiving the final manuscript with all editing completed.
In our shop, we’re not going to nickle and dime you by charging $5 for each minor typo that needs changing. After all, we’re authors too and know that, no matter how hard we try, we’ll almost never produce an error-free manuscript. So, if you find a half-dozen small typos that need correcting in the proof, we’ll usually do it without charge. If you send so many changes that we have to devote an hour or more to them…well, expect to be charged extra.
In fact, we always include the following condition in all our design contracts:
We will provide a typeset PDF proof via email for your review and approval. At this final stage, any design, layout, or editorial changes may incur additional charges at our standard hourly rate (at our option) unless they clearly are required due to errors made by us.
We think that’s more than fair, since we always bid on a per-project basis.
So, like I said at the start — be kind to your book designer. After all, it may very well save you some money!
Great post, Walt. I’d only add that you should have all your images together before your designer starts doing the lay out, and that includes having the rights to use those images.
Good point, Tyler. I know I would not be happy if a client wanted to insert a new graphic after we’d already gotten well into typesetting. I think we’d definitely have to start the hourly rate clock on that kind of change.
> If it were that simple and automated,
> you really wouldn’t need a book designer.
bingo.
let’s hear it for automation…
-bowerbird
As I’m sure you know, my intent was just the opposite. I have yet to see an automated layout system (for print or electronic books) that can come even close to what a good human designer can produce.
Creativity is not something that can be automated…or it would cease to be creative. And simply knowing all the rules won’t always work as a good designer knows when to bend or break those rules.
walt said:
> I have yet to see
> an automated layout system
> (for print or electronic books)
> that can come even close to
> what a good human designer
> can produce.
i’ve got some output from my tool
you can look at any time you like,
and i would welcome your critique.
i’ll use it to make tweaks to my tool.
> Creativity is not something
> that can be automated…
> or it would cease to be creative.
i won’t claim output from my tool
is “creative”. but it does the job…
(or will, anyway, after your tweaks.)
> And simply knowing all the rules
> won’t always work
> as a good designer knows when
> to bend or break those rules.
like i said, it does the job, that’s all.
if you want the rules bent or broken,
you’re gonna have to hire a human.
-bowerbird
walt said:
> I have yet to see
> an automated layout system
> (for print or electronic books)
> that can come even close to
> what a good human designer
> can produce.
of course, if you refuse to even look
for something, it’s no big surprise
if you happen to fail to see it… :+)
-bowerbird
If I had been interested, I would have replied.
I very rarely participate in beta testing for software. I just don’t have the time or inclination.
We have tools that work just fine and are optimized for our work flow and have no real interest is using automated layout software. I’m sure there are others who would be interested. I suggest you search them out.
walt said:
> If I had been interested,
> I would have replied.
yeah, that was exactly my point.
you’re not interested in seeing it.
which makes the fact that you
have _not_yet_ seen it rather…
unremarkable, wouldn’t you say?
you want to imply it doesn’t exist,
and you allow no disconfirmation.
it’s fine for you to be close-minded.
as long as you don’t act like you
know what you’re talking about…
> I very rarely participate
> in beta testing for software.
i wasn’t gonna show you the software,
or let you operate it in any way…
i was going to show you its _output_.
so you could gauge whether my tool had
“come even close to what a good human
designer can produce”, which is what
you’d said automation cannot achieve.
i maintain that an automated solution
can indeed achieve that level of quality,
and that my tool has already done so…
> We have tools that work just fine
> and are optimized for our work flow
> and have no real interest is using
> automated layout software.
> I’m sure there are others who
> would be interested. I suggest you
> search them out.
it’s not about you and your workflow.
it’s about what you said is _possible_.
-bowerbird