From: SMTP%"LISTSERV@BINGVMB.cc.binghamton.edu" 6-APR-1998 14:55:10.35 To: CIRJA02 CC: Subj: File: "INDEX-L LOG9803C" Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 14:35:08 +0000 From: BITNET list server at BINGVMB (1.8a) Subject: File: "INDEX-L LOG9803C" To: CIRJA02@GSVMS1.CC.GASOU.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:47:16 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Barbara Mullinix Subject: Sample Indexes Please tell me a little bit about sample indexes. I have the following questions about what a prospective client would expect to see: Are samples printed as editable manuscripts, doube-spaced in a monospace font? If so, what other fonts besides Courier might be used? Or should samples be appear as they would be printed in the book--maybe in columns? What fonts and print size? Or somewhere in between? Or what? Barb Mullinix Beeline Index Writing Service Emmitsburg, MD Barbara Mullinix Beeline Index Writing Service Emmitsburg, MD ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:12:58 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: BECohen653 Subject: Indexing and STC Notice: For an upcoming article for the STC Indexing SIG newlstter, I would like to talk to anyone who has presented a workshop on indexing at an STC annual meeting. I am interested in knowing the topic of your talk, what format you presented under, and how many people attended your presentation. Please contact me off-list at: BECohen653@aol.com Thanks. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:11:59 -0500 Reply-To: "Kamm Y. Schreiner" Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Kamm Y. Schreiner" Subject: Re: Sample Indexes Hi Barbara, I would like to answer your question, but I can't - I am not a professional indexer, I am a programmer. You may want to pose this question to INDEX-L. Once you know how you want it to print, if you have difficulty setting SKY Index up to do it, just let me know and I am sure I can help you get it to come out the way you want it too. Kamm >Please tell me a little bit about sample indexes. I have the following >questions about what a prospective client would expect to see: > > Are samples printed as editable manuscripts, doube-spaced in a monospace >font? If so, what other fonts besides Courier might be used? > > Or should samples be appear as they would be printed in the book--maybe >in columns? What fonts and print size? > > Or somewhere in between? Or what? > >Barb Mullinix >Beeline Index Writing Service >Emmitsburg, MD >Barbara Mullinix >Beeline Index Writing Service >Emmitsburg, MD > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:18:31 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: CGWeaver Subject: Re: Sample Indexes In a message dated 98-03-16 08:49:13 EST, you write: << Please tell me a little bit about sample indexes. I have the following questions about what a prospective client would expect to see: Are samples printed as editable manuscripts, doube-spaced in a monospace font? If so, what other fonts besides Courier might be used? Or should samples be appear as they would be printed in the book--maybe in columns? What fonts and print size? Or somewhere in between? Or what? >> When responding to general "send me a sample of your work" inquiries, I either send a photocopy of the published index (if available) or a 2-column, single- spaced sample generated from my disk copy, printed in Times Roman 10pt, simply because it's attractive and easy to read and gives something of the appearance of the printed index. I use a header, "From ___________ [title, author, publisher, date] for those printed from the file, and type in the source on the first page of photocopies. When preparing a sample of new material to accompany a bid for a job, I often send it double-spaced, single column, as an example of what the client will receive from me, and often include the disk file as well, so that the potential client can test it on his/her own system. Format of the sample, as with all things, is negotiable. Carolyn Weaver Bellevue, WA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:14:58 -0500 Reply-To: "Kamm Y. Schreiner" Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Kamm Y. Schreiner" Subject: Oops! Sorry Barbara and INDEX-L'ers I obviously thought Barbara's email was to me specifically. I guess I should examine the "From" column a little better. Sorry, Kamm Schreiner President SKY Software 4675 York Rd #1 Lineboro, MD 21102 email: kamm@sky-software.com phone: 800-776-0137 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:29:26 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Martha Osgood Subject: Indexer Needed Hi folks Here is a post I received from a friend. I don't do software manuals, so am passing the opportunity out to you. >I have a question. It looks like we may have to outsource an indexing job. >It's a software manual written in Microsoft Word, and it needs to be >indexed using the Word indexing tools. There will be one or two manuals, >each about 100 pages long. >I need to know what a person might charge (by page, by hour) and how long >it would take. Can you post this on your index list or pass it on to >someone you know who does this sort of thing? Respond to Gila Jones in San Juan Capistrano area at gjones@vsi.com and use my name. Martha Osgood Back Words Indexing index@teleport.com www.teleport.com/~index ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:48:43 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Locatelli Subject: Reminder, ASI Chicago/Great Lakes Chapter workshop American Society of Indexers Chicago/Great Lakes Chapter Spring Workshop 1998 featured speaker: Seth Maislin "Pageless Indexing: or, Indexing Electronic Media" Saturday, March 28, 1998 8:15 am 4:30 pm Wyndham Garden Hotel 5615 N. Cumberland Avenue Chicago, IL 60631 773-693-5800 Workshop contents: Indexing concepts. Some users prefer search engines to indexes. Where specifically does the index hold its advantages? How does an indexer approach a book that is still unfinished? Index layout. Without page numbers, what do locators look like? How do you handle now-obsolete concepts such as page ranges? What can you do with multiple references, cross references, and double posting? Why is HTML a poor medium for index presentation? Embedded indexing. In addition to the difficulties in editing an index, there are whole new software programs indexers need to learn. What do they look like, and how do they work? If so many indexers dislike embedded indexing, why do publishers insist upon it? Changes in the business. Authors are writing their own indexes. More indexers are working in-house. How can a freelance indexer get involved in the industry? What are the challenges of working at home when the computer files are elsewhere? In addition, Gerry van Ravenswaay will discuss Web indexing and design. Program Schedule 8:15 Registration 8:45 Welcome and announcements 9:00 Seth Maislin, Pageless Indexing: or, Indexing Electronic Media, Part I 12:00 Seated lunch 1:30 Seth Maislin, Pageless Indexing: or, Indexing Electronic Media, Part II 2:45 Break 3:15 Gerry Van Ravenswaay: Web Indexing and Design 4:00 Chicago/Great Lakes Chapter Business Meeting and Elections 4:30 Adjournment Directions The Wyndham Garden Hotel is accessible by public transportation (Cumberland stop on CTA Blue Line). Cumberland South exit off the Kennedy Expressway. The hotel also provides free shuttle service from O Hare Airport. For hotel and accommodation information, call 312-693-5800. Additional Information For more information, call Sandi Schroeder at 847-303-0989 (sanindex@aol.com) or Gerald Van Ravens-waay at 773-665-2588 (gvraven@aol.com). Cancellation Fee Registrations may be cancelled until Monday, March 23; refunds will be made less a $20 processing fee. After March 23, no refunds can be made on cancelled registrations. Registration Form ASI Members Non-members At the door $105 $115 Conference fee includes continental breakfast, sit-down lunch, and afternoon refreshments. Name________________________________ First name for nametag__________________ Address______________________________ City, State, Zip________________________ Phone_______________________________ E-mail_______________________________ For my luncheon entrie, I would like: o vegetable lasagne o grilled chicken caesar salad o meat lasagne o I will be staying overnight at the hotel. (This information is for planning purposes only. Please make your reservations directly with the hotel.) Make checks payable to Caryl Wenzel, ASI Chicago Chapter Treasurer. Mail check and form to: Caryl Wenzel, 8315 Route 53, Unit B14, Woodridge, IL 60517. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:55:07 -0800 Reply-To: jthomas3@csulb.edu Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Joy Thomas Organization: California State University Long Beach, Library Subject: Re: Reminder, ASI Chicago/Great Lakes Chapter workshop Anyone who has a chance to hear Seth Maislin talk on Pageless Indexing should not miss it! He spoke two days ago to the Arizona chapter & gave a wonderfully clear presentation. I have never heard anyone TALK about databases (as opposed to a live demo) and make everything so crystal clear. Yes, it was highly technical & require intense listening, but it was never confusing. P. S. He doesn;t give breaks, so be prepared to listen hard! ;-) -- Joy Thomas Social Sciences Librarian California State University, Long Beach 562 985-7817 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:07:45 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Rachel Rice Subject: postal codes for provinces Hi All, I'm doing a travel book (western Can and Alaska). Would you use postal abbreviations in the index? Or would you put, for example, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, or just Whitehorse, or Whitehorse, YT? What are the postal codes for Yukon and British Columbia? YT and BC? Would you use Dawson Creek, BC, and Dawson City, AK, or how would you do it? Thanks as always, Rachel Rachel Rice Directions Unlimited Desktop Services Indexing, editing, proofreading http://homepages.together.net/~racric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:35:18 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Robert A. Saigh" Subject: Re: postal codes for provinces Dear Rachel: I would put BC or YT in parentheses next to the name of the town only if there is more than one town with that name in the book. If there is only one Dawson City mentioned and the book is not about Arkansas, why mention British Columbia? Isn't that obvious? If not, put BC in parentheses. That's my vote. Robert A. Saigh fugleman@mindspring.com Rachel Rice wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm doing a travel book (western Can and Alaska). Would you use postal > abbreviations in the index? Or would you put, for example, Whitehorse, > Yukon Territory, or just Whitehorse, or Whitehorse, YT? What are the postal > codes for Yukon and British Columbia? YT and BC? Would you use Dawson > Creek, BC, and Dawson City, AK, or how would you do it? > > Thanks as always, > > Rachel > > Rachel Rice > Directions Unlimited Desktop Services > Indexing, editing, proofreading > http://homepages.together.net/~racric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:56:26 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kay Popp Subject: Newcomer This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BD50E3.4FCEE7C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is taking a course in indexing the best way to find out if one likes it? = Is there a decent market out there for free lance indexers? I'm = interested in doing indexing from my home. I'd appreciate any comments/opinions on this. Kay mkpopp@wcnet.net.net ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BD50E3.4FCEE7C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is taking a course in indexing the = best way to=20 find out if one likes it?  Is there a decent market out there for = free=20 lance indexers?  I'm interested in doing indexing from my=20 home.
 
I'd appreciate any comments/opinions = on=20 this.
 
Kay
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BD50E3.4FCEE7C0-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:58:33 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kay Popp Subject: Newcomer-correction This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BD50E3.9BA015C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My email address is mkpopp@wcnet.net not mkpopp@wcnet.net.net Kay ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BD50E3.9BA015C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
   My email address is mkpopp@wcnet.net not mkpopp@wcnet.net.net
 
   = Kay
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BD50E3.9BA015C0-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:08:03 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "SHARON J. STEINBERG" Subject: Re: postal codes for provinces In-Reply-To: <199803161911.OAA18409@alcor.concordia.ca> re: postal codes for western canada you do not need to use postal codes for a travel book i think you mean provincial codes. eg B.C. is for British Columbia, alta. for alberta, sask. for saskatchewan. The postal codes are like you zip codes, and there is no one code for a whole province.for example, in the province of alberta, you could have the postal code T2P 2m7 for an address in calgary, and the postal code T5J 2T0 for and address in edmonton. the internet will give you more info if you need it. sharon On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Rachel Rice wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm doing a travel book (western Can and Alaska). Would you use postal > abbreviations in the index? Or would you put, for example, Whitehorse, > Yukon Territory, or just Whitehorse, or Whitehorse, YT? What are the postal > codes for Yukon and British Columbia? YT and BC? Would you use Dawson > Creek, BC, and Dawson City, AK, or how would you do it? > > Thanks as always, > > Rachel > > Rachel Rice > Directions Unlimited Desktop Services > Indexing, editing, proofreading > http://homepages.together.net/~racric > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:36:18 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Anne Taylor Subject: Re: postal codes for provinces Hello, If the book is part of a series of travel guides, like the Fodor's, Michelin, or Mobile sets, I think I would include the province's postal abbreviation or full name for clarity. (I've seen our patrons sit down with several guides for different regions and compare them for ideas.) But, if this is a monograph and it's perfectly clear in the title that you're only covering western Canada and Alaska, I'd leave them out. Anne >On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Rachel Rice wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I'm doing a travel book (western Can and Alaska). Would you use postal >> abbreviations in the index? Or would you put, for example, Whitehorse, >> Yukon Territory, or just Whitehorse, or Whitehorse, YT? What are the postal >> codes for Yukon and British Columbia? YT and BC? Would you use Dawson >> Creek, BC, and Dawson City, AK, or how would you do it? >> >> Thanks as always, >> >> Rachel >> >> Rachel Rice >> Directions Unlimited Desktop Services >> Indexing, editing, proofreading >> http://homepages.together.net/~racric >> > Anne Taylor University of Missouri-St. Louis ataylor@umsl.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:02:11 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: E: Mail origin cannot be determined. Comments: E: Original tag data was -> Charles Anderson Subject: Re: Sample Indexes I just photocopy the title page and index from books I've done. When I send in an index, I always request as a courtesy a copy of the book when published. I have never, in 25+ years of free-lance indexing, had an editor decline to send a copy. Charles Anderson At 08:47 AM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >Please tell me a little bit about sample indexes. I have the following >questions about what a prospective client would expect to see: > > Are samples printed as editable manuscripts, doube-spaced in a monospace >font? If so, what other fonts besides Courier might be used? > > Or should samples be appear as they would be printed in the book--maybe >in columns? What fonts and print size? > > Or somewhere in between? Or what? > >Barb Mullinix >Beeline Index Writing Service >Emmitsburg, MD >Barbara Mullinix >Beeline Index Writing Service >Emmitsburg, MD > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:02:57 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: E: Mail origin cannot be determined. Comments: E: Original tag data was -> Charles Anderson Subject: Re: Sample Indexes P.S. to preceding message - obviously I try to send samples from similar books - not everything I've done. Charles At 08:47 AM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >Please tell me a little bit about sample indexes. I have the following >questions about what a prospective client would expect to see: > > Are samples printed as editable manuscripts, doube-spaced in a monospace >font? If so, what other fonts besides Courier might be used? > > Or should samples be appear as they would be printed in the book--maybe >in columns? What fonts and print size? > > Or somewhere in between? Or what? > >Barb Mullinix >Beeline Index Writing Service >Emmitsburg, MD >Barbara Mullinix >Beeline Index Writing Service >Emmitsburg, MD > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:03:31 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Indexlady Subject: Fwd: CNN Opening This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_890082209_boundary Content-ID: <0_890082209@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII This came across on another listserv. Dawn indexlady@aol.com --part0_890082209_boundary Content-ID: <0_890082209@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from relay28.mx.aol.com (relay28.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.28]) by air13.mail.aol.com (v40.7) with SMTP; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:11:35 -0500 Received: from listserv.oit.unc.edu (listserv.oit.unc.edu [152.2.25.17]) by relay28.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA25939; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from SOCKFAULT1@localhost (port 37819 [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with SMTP id <227951-28843>; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:09:10 -0500 Received: from IDENT-NONSENSE@alfw4.turner.com (port 1836 [198.81.230.33]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with ESMTP id <227997-28845>; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:08:23 -0500 Received: from [157.166.99.191] by alfw4.turner.com for id PAB03446; Mon Mar 16 15:08:23 1998 Received: from ccMail by ccmailout.turner.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 001936A8; Mon, 16 Mar 98 15:07:42 -0500 Message-Id: <001936A8.1689@turner.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:57:59 -0500 Reply-To: newslib@listserv.oit.unc.edu Sender: owner-newslib@listserv.oit.unc.edu From: Debra.Bade@turner.com To: amia-l@lsv.uky.edu, newslib@listserv.oit.unc.edu Subject: CNN Opening Content-Description: cc:Mail note part X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit CNN has an immediate opening for a Librarian at our Atlanta headquarters. This Librarian will provide both video and information research services to reporters, editors, and producers in CNN domestic and international locations. Other responsibilities will include helping to build and maintain a large internal database of CNN news footage. Join a unique team of researchers in a busy news research center and archive! Applicants should have MLS, a passion for current events, indexing/cataloging experience, an affinity for working with a photo or video archive, and experience with online research tools (Lexis-Nexis, Dialog, Dow Jones, Internet etc.) Familiarity with video preservation issues and digital archiving a definite bonus. Previous news library or other corporate library experience is highly desirable. Candidates must be able to prioritize research needs and keep moving in a high-stress, deadline-oriented work environment. Please send your resume along with a cover letter to my attention by March 31, 1998: Debra Bade Manager, News Research, CNN One CNN Center, Box 105366 Atlanta, GA 30348 fax: 404-827-5283 debra.bade@turner.com No telephone calls please. --part0_890082209_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:27:35 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Craig Brown Subject: Re: Newcomer Kay Popp asks: >>Is taking a course in indexing the best way to find out if one likes it? = Is there a decent market out there for free lance indexers? I'm = interested in doing indexing from my home.<< Taking an indexing course is an excellent way to discover one's aptitude. So is reading books on the subject such as Nancy Mulvany's _Indexing Books_, which is offered as course material in the USDA's introductory course to indexing. There are other signals. For instance, do you have a penchant for putting things in order? Longtime indexer and indexing instructor Hazel Blumberg-McKee asked in an article: "Do You Alphabetize Your Spices?" Are the books on your bookshelves arranged in some way that's meaningful to you (by author, by size, by the Dewey Decimal system)? The second part of your question gets a more nebulous answer. There is a decent market for freelance indexers but it takes a lot of work to find it. It's a frequent topic of discussion on this list. It also takes some period of time to reap the benefits of your marketing efforts. Some publishers will call a year or more after receiving your resume. You should not expect overnight success. In any case you've found this list, which is a terrific source of information. That's a good start. Welcome! Craig Brown ========================================== The Last Word lastword@i1.net Indexing (314)352-9094 www.i1.net/~lastword ========================================== ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:43:37 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Nan Badgett Subject: Literary criticism JOB ASAP If anyone specializes in literary criticism and has time for a 250-page well-written scholarly book with a very tight deadline, please email me privately or call me ASAP. My phone is 520-825-2892. Thanks, Nan Badgett dba Word-a-bil-i-ty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:27:14 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Olivia L'Heureux Subject: Re: Reminder, ASI Chicago/Great Lakes Chapter workshop I agree with Joy about Seth Masilin's presentation on Pageless Indexing. One thing that Seth was especially good at was sensing the level of understanding of the audience and gearing the presentation at a level that we would be comfortable. This was a tough job, as there were people from varied backgrounds and experience levels, but he succeeded at making the presentation valuable to all, in my opinion. This would be of interest to all indexers, especially people interested in embedded indexing, the indexing of software manuals, "Web indexing" and the future of indexing. My favorite part of his presentation was his explanation of SGML for indexers. I knew nothing about it going in; coming out I felt comfortable understanding how SGML is related to indexing and to the common software packages used. It was not only interesting, but fun, too. So, if you have the opportunity---GO! Olivia L'Heureux ollielarue@sprintmail.com Joy Thomas wrote: > > Anyone who has a chance to hear Seth Maislin talk on Pageless Indexing > should not miss it! He spoke two days ago to the Arizona chapter & gave > a wonderfully clear presentation. I have never heard anyone TALK about > databases (as opposed to a live demo) and make everything so crystal > clear. Yes, it was highly technical & require intense listening, but it > was never confusing. > > P. S. He doesn;t give breaks, so be prepared to listen hard! ;-) > -- > Joy Thomas > Social Sciences Librarian > California State University, Long Beach > 562 985-7817 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:35:32 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Martha Osgood Subject: Gila thanks the m-a-n-y indexers who responded Gila, my friend with the possible software manual (using Word) indexing job, wishes to say THANK YOU for your responses. She is now able to get an idea of her possibilities. (I also think she is a litle overwhelmed with the number of responses, but we'll let her deal with that on her own, right?) Thanks to you all. Martha Osgood Back Words Indexing index@teleport.com www.teleport.com/~index ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:08:30 LCL Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Ed. Prucha" Subject: Postscript files In-Reply-To: <199803140512.AAA18594@rtfm.midcoast.com> Maro -- I wonder if you could expand on the Ambia Aerial item that you mentioned in your message. Is that a font, or is it a separate software program? I just received some postscript files from a publisher, and would like to see if they can be translated to a word processor format. My copy of Acrobat Distiller is the PE (private edition) version, and so will probably have to upgrade that software - I think it is available in Adobe Acrobat. But I'd like to know if I would need other software to make the next step in the translation to a word processor (Word, WordPerfect, and their ilk). Thanks for any help you can offer .... >Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:21:03 -0500 >From: Maro Riofrancos >Subject: Re: Word to Quark > >Quark files can be converted to Word files in the following steps: > >1. Create a PS (Postscript) file, using the Print Job command in the File >menu. >2. Convert the PS file to a PDF file, using Acrobat Distiller. >3. Convert the PDF file to an RTF file, using Ambia Aerial. >4. Open the file in Word and save as Word document. > >It's a very easy process. > >Maro > Edward J. Prucha PO Box 151, Nobleboro, ME 04555 (packages to: 1817 Bristol Road Bristol, ME 04539) edprucha@midcoast.com phone and fax: 207/677-6010 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:25:00 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kay Popp Subject: Re: Newcomer Thanks for your response. I do alphabetize my spices:-) and try to arrange my books. I also like to work alone. I'm interested in doing this as part time at least at first, so I guess it would be OK if business started out slow. Kay ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:43:11 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Nancy A. Guenther" Subject: Phila. Local group ASI meeting Perhaps it is the informality of our group, or my lack of memory, but I don't remember seeing these meeting details on Index-L. Meetings are open for current and/or potential indexers. Philadelphi Group of ASI will hold its spring meeting on Sat March 21 from 1pm to 3pm (or later) at the Wissahickon Valley Public Library Community Room, 650 Skippack Pike (Route 73), Blue Bell, PA in Montgomery County. Speaker for the meeting will be Susan Rotondo. Her topic, "Indexing at Home: business or hobby", emphasizing the business aspects of indexing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:30:13 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Julie Shawvan Subject: Dr. Spock's index From the obituary of Dr. Benjamin Spock in the San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 1998, from the L.A. Times: "The genesis for the book that was to make him a household word came from Pocket Books, the paperback publishers. His then wife, Jane, typed it from Spock's handwritten and dictated work, and the pediatrician even insisted to his publishers that he do the index himself, rather than turn it over to others. 'I knew I would have a better notion of what words mothers would look for in an index,' he said." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:27:23 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Nan Badgett Subject: Literary Criticsm job Thanks to everyone who responded to my call for help. I found the right indexer for the job, proving the value of Index-L. Nan Badgett dba Word-a-bil-i-ty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:38:16 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sonsie Subject: Re: Dr. Spock's index At 08:30 AM 3/17/1998 -0800, Julie Shawvan wrote: > "The genesis for the book that was to make him a household word came >from Pocket Books, the paperback publishers. His then wife, Jane, typed it >from Spock's handwritten and dictated work, and the pediatrician even >insisted to his publishers that he do the index himself, rather than turn it >over to others. 'I knew I would have a better notion of what words mothers >would look for in an index,' he said." While the index wasn't as orderly as I would have made it , I can attest to the fact that the one in my edition was a blessing. It did, indeed, use every conceivable word a mother might think of when she was in dire straits (well...swear words notwithstanding...). And for those who might believe the canard that Dr. Spock was the soul of permissiveness, who caused most of the problems with the younger generation, I'd recommend actually reading his book. It's nothing like it has been portrayed in the media. =Sonsie= ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:15:31 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: judith elaine martin Subject: taking my e-mail address off the list I'm sorry but i do not know how to cancel my list serv subscription. can someone help me? thank you. Renee Wrest. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:32:49 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: Dr. Spock's index In-Reply-To: <199803171745.JAA07020@powergrid.electriciti.com> A proud grandmother, who began with Dr. Spock (and stood with him at the Nevada nuclear weapons Test Site) says "here! here!" >And for those who might believe the canard that Dr. Spock was the soul of >permissiveness, who caused most of the problems with the younger generation, >I'd recommend actually reading his book. It's nothing like it has been >portrayed in the media. > > =Sonsie= > > Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:56:17 -0000 Reply-To: kpaparchontis@worldnet.att.net Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kathy Paparchontis Subject: up-front charges Hi everyone, First I am a new indexer--I have one index under my belt. I am negotiating an index job with a local historical society. The task will involve indexing approximately 180 of their quarterly publications. What I would like to know is if it is customary to request a partial payment before I undertake the index, or should I finish the work and then bill them? Thank you for your time. Kathy Paparchontis K & D, Associates Editorial and indexing services & also historical research (The D is for my husband; he answers the phone for me on occasion.} ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:41:18 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Anne Taylor Subject: Re: Dr. Spock's index At 10:32 AM 3/17/98 -0800, you wrote: >A proud grandmother, who began with Dr. Spock (and stood with him at the >Nevada nuclear weapons Test Site) says "here! here!" >Pam Rider >>And for those who might believe the canard that Dr. Spock was the soul of >>permissiveness, who caused most of the problems with the younger generation, >>I'd recommend actually reading his book. It's nothing like it has been >>portrayed in the media. >> >> =Sonsie= Griping about the next generation seems to be a cherished, old, American pastime... I'm converting a 1930s WPA slave narrative where the ex-slave is kvetching about how easy the "young'uns" have it (my grandma's generation) and how permissive their upbringing has been. Wish I had a nickel for every time my beloved grandma told me how easy I had it and how permissive my upbringing was... Anne Anne Taylor University of Missouri-St. Louis ataylor@umsl.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:47:24 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Julie Shawvan Subject: New info: Golden Gate Conference ASI Golden Gate Chapter Conference, Saturday March 21 Here are further details on the speakers and panelists who will accompany our workshop with JESSICA MILSTEAD on "THESAURUS DEVELOPMENT AND VOCABULARY MANAGEMENT." Keynote speaker: NIRAV TOLIA from YAHOO!, who is a frequent speaker on radio and television, nationally and internationally, as an Internet expert and educator. Panelists: RICHARD TONG, president of Tarragon Consulting Corporation. Dr. Tong has over 25 years experience in advanced technologies for knowledge management and information analysis. HEATHER HEDDEN, vocabulary editor at Information Access Corporation in Foster City. Her primary responsibilities include the communication of all new and suggested indexing terms to the indexing staff. DATE: Saturday, March 21 8:30-9:00 check-in, coffee & pastries 9:00-4:30 program coffee breaks lunch of salmon filet access to vendor exhibits & information tables LOCATION: Berkeley City Club 2315 Durant Avenue Berkeley (between Dana and Elsworth, adjacent to public parking) The Conference fee is $75 for ASI members and $85 for non-members. Registrations after March 14 will be taken on a space-available basis, with an additional $10 fee. To register, contact Therese Shere at: tshere7566@aol.com or call (707)838-7823. For further information, please contact Robyn Brode, Conference Chair: rbrode@earthlink.net, or (510)704-8584. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:56:51 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Charlotte Skuster Subject: presentation of web indexes I am posting this for a colleague that is not a subscriber to index-l. Please post your replies directly to George. Or, if you like,to the list and to George McKee gmckee@library.lib.binghamton.edu. Charlotte ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:55:35 -0500 (EST) From: George McKee ====================================================================== As indexes and similar lists flourish on the web, the question arises, what kind of features are most appropriate for the varieties of information which are being presented? What sort of presentation works best to encourage browsing and consultation of the index? What sort of presentation tends to discourage this? The web offers an important opportunity to rethink the features which enhance or discourage the consultation of extended lists and indexes. What is the state of the art? What kind of software enhancement is most effective? What just tends to get in the way? Examples and bibliography which might be useful in the development of yet another indexical web site would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. George McKee gmckee@library.lib.binghamton.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:08:13 +0400 Reply-To: Lee McKee Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lee McKee Subject: Dr. Benjamin Spock, Indexer When I was 11 years old and home from school, alone, with a nasty case of the flu, I searched the house high and low for something to read that I hadn't already read. Nancy Drew had lost her charm. The print in the encyclopedias was too small for my fevered eyes. My brothers Boys' Life and military histories had no appeal. I found a very dog-eared, splattered, stained, and binding-broken copy of Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care that fell open at the index under Cradle cap .. or at least that was the word that got my attention. I looked it up in the text, then dove back into the index for other interesting entries, that might shed some light on my brother's puzzling personality and behavior. That was the first time, in my memory, that I used an index. In today's (3/17) Boston Globe, the following appeared in Dr. Spock's obituary: "Dr Spock prepared the index [to the Baby Book] himself - `I knew that I would have a better notion of what words mothers would look for in an index,' he said - and its comprising some 1,500 entries became one of the book's most popular features." -- Lee ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:25:38 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Newcomer In-Reply-To: <199803170529.XAA25138@mixcom.mixcom.com> In addition to Craig's good advice, I would suggest that you do 2 or 3 practice indexes to see if you like indexing. Even allowing for the fact that you'll be slower and more confused than you will be a couple years down the road, practicing on longer texts (say, 200 pages) should tell you a lot about whether you like indexing. What it won't tell you, of course, is whether you like running a business. I'm not sure how one would find that out ahead of time. Best of luck to you. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:22 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Noeline Bridge Subject: Re: ASI service agreement A member of the Indexing and Abstracting Society of Canada has asked about sample contracts. IASC doesn't have one, but I think ASI does; in fact, I recently saw it reprinted in an old issue of Key Words, not as a "contract" but as an "agreement," I think it said. My questions are these: Is the form printed in Key Words the sample ASI "contract" I've seen and heard mentioned? Has it been updated recently? Apart from its reproduction in Key Words, what is its availability--only to ASI members or for others as well? Can we refer our enquirer to the relevant issue of Key Words, telling her that the form is to be used for guidance only, etc., repeating the warning given with the form? I'm asking Index-L subscribers because I know how busy the ASI office is and that so many of you will know the answers and more. Noeline Bridge BRIDGEWORK nbridge@planet.eon.net 10979 123 Street Edmonton, AB T5M 0E1 Canada phone 403-452-8325 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:34:31 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: francine cronshaw Subject: Re: Dr. Spock's index In-Reply-To: Dr. Spock may have written the index for the original edition of his baby book, but the index for the 6th Spanish edition was farmed out to a professional (namely, yours truly). Francine Cronshaw East Mountain Editing Services Tijeras, New Mexico On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Julie Shawvan wrote: > >From the obituary of Dr. Benjamin Spock in the San Francisco Chronicle, > March 17, 1998, from the L.A. Times: > > "The genesis for the book that was to make him a household word came > from Pocket Books, the paperback publishers. His then wife, Jane, typed it > from Spock's handwritten and dictated work, and the pediatrician even > insisted to his publishers that he do the index himself, rather than turn it > over to others. 'I knew I would have a better notion of what words mothers > would look for in an index,' he said." > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:50:35 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: BECohen653 Subject: Re: ASI service agreement I believe that the ASI indexing agreement is available for anyone to use. In the past, consensus was that people used parts of it, or used it as a guideline to develop their own contract with clients. Few (no ?) indexers were using it verbatim. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:15:35 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kay Popp Subject: Re: Newcomer Thanks for the response. I got another response yesterday that also suggested doing practice indexes and maybe even having a professional take a look at one of my indexes after I take a course but before I start looking for business. Kay Popp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:51:59 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: CGWeaver Subject: Re: ASI service agreement In a message dated 98-03-17 18:53:42 EST, you write: << I believe that the ASI indexing agreement is available for anyone to use. In the past, consensus was that people used parts of it, or used it as a guideline to develop their own contract with clients. Few (no ?) indexers were using it verbatim. Barbara >> Actually, it's available from ASI as a DOS file on disk (unless it's changed since I paid $10 for it about 7 years ago). Carolyn Weaver Bellevue, WA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:55:41 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: julie forrest Subject: Family history indexing Hello All, If someone could supply me with an address and/or email of a source for the following book for purchase I would be most grateful. Please reply off-list. Author: Patricia Hatcher Title: Indexing family histories : simple steps Arlington, Va. : National Geneal. society, 1994 ISBN 0915156733 Series title: Special publications of the National Genealogical Society, no. 73 Thank you Julie Julie Forrest Cataloguing/Serials Librarian Australian Catholic University McAuley Campus 53 Prospect Road Mitchelton QLD 4053 Australia Tel (61+7) 3855 7119 Fax (61+7) 3855 7268 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:56:19 +0000 Reply-To: connolly@neca.com Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Dan Connolly Organization: WORD FOR WORD Book Indexing Subject: Re: ASI Sample Agreement Having only recently joined ASI, is there a way to obtain a copy of this agreement for perusal? I'm aware that back issues can be purchased but I was hoping there might be another way. Does anyone else feel that this item should be placed on ASI's web site? The Freelance Editorial Association has one on their web site, as well as some other useful info for home business persons. Dan -- Dan Connolly mailto:connolly@neca.com WORD FOR WORD Book Indexing and Editing Services http://WFWIndex.necaweb.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:56:31 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Susan D. Hernandez" Subject: Re: ASI service agreement On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:22 -0700 Noeline Bridge wrote >Apart from its reproduction in Key Words, what is its >availability--only to >ASI members or for others as well? Can we refer our enquirer to the >relevant >issue of Key Words, telling her that the form is to be used for >guidance >only, etc., repeating the warning given with the form? You can find an order form for the ASI Recommended Indexing Agreement at the ASI Web site. Anyone can order it, but there is a discount for ASI members. It costs $5 + shipping and comes both written and on a disk with files that can be modified. Susan Hernandez BookEnd Indexing _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:49:24 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: New Frontiers in Indexing All -- The April 1 deadline for early registration for this year's ASI Annual Conference (May 13-16 at Cavanaugh's Inn in Seattle) is just aruond the corner! If you are interested in attending the conference but have not received a conference brochure & registration form, please send an e-mail message to me (76620.456@compuserve.com) or download the registration form from the ASI Web site (http://www.well.com/user/asi). Please do not respond to INDEX-L. Also, if you plan to attend the conference but haven't yet made your hotel reservations, please do so by April 1 so you can receive ASI's discounted rate. The toll-free number for Cavanaugh's is 1-800-325-4000. Looking forward to seeing you in Seattle! .... Lori ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:15:10 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Erika Millen Subject: politically correct indexing I'm indexing a computer book that has a lot of information about the Windows 95 accessibility options for disabled users. What's the preferred way to index these features? I'm using "accessibility options" as a main entry, but I'd also like to post these features under something like "physically challenged users" or "visually impaired users". Do you think that's enough? Should I create a See reference for "disabled users, see accessibility options"? Or will that get me in trouble? I don't want to offend anyone, but at the same time I don't want someone to look up "disabled users" or "handicapped users" and think there's no relevant information in the book. Erika Millen Indianapolis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:51:38 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181507.HAA01005@powergrid.electriciti.com> Erika demonstrates great sensitivity (but, I find the term politically correct offensive). Disability is currently considered the preferable term, with handicap only used when part of a proper name, as in legislation. In other words, disability is in and handicap is out. A sentence would be: "Pam is a number of disabilities, but none handicaps her as an indexer. BUT, readers may not be clued in to those nuances. I know of no problem with the word "blind." And many--not all, but perhaps most--folks without hearing prefer the word deaf and consider themselves the deaf community. The problems of advocacy groups seeking sensitive language is not really of actual words, but of the practice of labeling. It's considered--and I agree--that there's a significant difference between labeling a person as diabetic and identifying them as having diabetes. In the first instance, the person is defined by a serious medical condition; in the second, the person simply has a serious medical condition. Therefore, a person who is blind is prefered to blind person. The word "blind" is not the problem. Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:21:23 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sharon Wright Subject: politically correct indexing -Reply Since we do statute indexing here, we run into this all of the time. It's a difficult balancing act between sensitivity to "political correctness" and the reality of where your users will look in the index. I think that cross references from Disabled persons and Handicapped persons (or users) would be acceptable-- these are terms that many users would use and are, all things considered, fairly neutral. I would also consider cross references from Visually Impaired Users and Physically Challenged Users-- again, these are fairly neutral. This is an important issue, and you have to rely on your own judgment, but you have to consider where the average user is going to look for this material. Otherwise, you defeat the purpose of the index, which is to help people locate relevant material quickly and (hopefully!) painlessly. Good luck! -- Sharon W. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:39:07 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Kennedy Subject: Re: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181506.JAA06272@mail.minn.net> At 10:15 AM 3/18/98 -0500, you wrote: > I'm using "accessibility options" as a main entry, but I'd > also like to post these features under something like > "physically challenged users" or "visually impaired users". > Do you think that's enough? Should I create a See reference > for "disabled users, see accessibility options"? Or will > that get me in trouble? > > I don't want to offend anyone, but at the same time > I don't want someone to look up "disabled users" or > "handicapped users" and think there's no relevant > information in the book. If you use heads that reflect the condition rather than label the person, you'll be fine: "Disabilities," not "Disabled users"; "Visual impairment," not "Visually impaired users." Best wishes, Carol Kennedy (mom to kids who have disabilities) colfaxgp@minn.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:36:02 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Nancy A. Guenther" Subject: travel to Seattle Thought others might like to know there appears to be a significant drop in airline rates in the last few days. Yahoo travel lists fares from Phila to Seattle at $248. Not too long ago the best I was finding was over $400. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:25:13 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Michael Schwilk Subject: Re[2]: politically correct indexing Pam wrote, in part: "It's considered--and I agree--that there's a significant difference between labeling a person as diabetic and identifying them as having diabetes. In the first instance, the person is defined by a serious medical condition;in the second, the person simply has a serious medical condition... a person who is blind is prefered to blind person." Wouldn't this logic dictate entries such as: Diabetes persons affected with (thus adding an extra, and unnecessary, level) Persons diabetes affected visually impaired Having been stung by my oversensitivity to being PC (when I queried the CE list on use of "rule of thumb") I've decided to resort to common sense and not get hung up on this issue. As for labeling, hey, that what indexers do. Mike S. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:06:47 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: Re[2]: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181742.JAA08839@powergrid.electriciti.com> At 09:25 AM 3/18/98 -0800, Mike asked about: Diabetes > persons affected with (thus adding an extra, and unnecessary, level) > > Persons > diabetes affected > visually impaired The Person category is a joke-right? Otherwise just Diabetes should be fine, such as Diabetes diagnosis research retinopathy treatment type One might have reason for a subcategory of "patient," but the connection is usually inherent in the appropriate subheadings. If, not just add "patient." Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:03:40 -0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Liza Weinkove Subject: Re: politically correct indexing I have wrestled with these problems numerous times over the years. Handicapped is definitely an out term in the UK, and I avoid using it if at all possible. The usual way here is to refer to people ("persons" is US style) with disabilities, people with learning disabilities etc, but since these make awkward index headings I now use disabled people, learning disabled (people) etc if I can't get away with disability or learning disability on their own. I find this is an acceptable practical solution, and I don't think it should cause offence when used in this way When it comes to diabetic, epileptic etc as labels for people, I find I can always manage to frame the entries so that the heading becomes diabetes, epilepsy etc, and I can dispense with the "persons with" bit eg diabetes driving in eye problems in although there are of course perfectly acceptable medical conditions using the word diabetic, eg diabetic retinopathy. Just my two-pennyworth. Liza Weinkove ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:43:02 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Katrina Lemke Subject: Re: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181505.KAA01977@camel5.mindspring.com> As a legally blind indexer and Windows 95 user, I feel compelled to respond to this post. I use the accessibility options quite extensively - they make computing possible for me. I agree that accessibility options should be the main entry. Personally I tend to look up disability or disabled first. I don't think physically challenged is necessary and may be carrying it a bit too far. Visually impaired is very common and partially sighted is another version. I also think that handicapped is a valid and important entry. In my mind handicapped refers more to physical disabilities that interfere with mobility and use of arms, hands and legs. I would err on the side of helpful rather than sensitive. There will be those who will be offended no matter what terms you use - I call them the militant blind (disabled). I don't mind "labels". In fact I use the politically correct terms because non-disabled people are more comfortable with it. BTW, what's the title of the book you're indexing? Katrina Lemke At 10:15 AM 3/18/98 -0500, you wrote: > I'm indexing a computer book that has a lot of information > about the Windows 95 accessibility options for disabled > users. What's the preferred way to index these features? > I'm using "accessibility options" as a main entry, but I'd > also like to post these features under something like > "physically challenged users" or "visually impaired users". > Do you think that's enough? Should I create a See reference > for "disabled users, see accessibility options"? Or will > that get me in trouble? > > I don't want to offend anyone, but at the same time > I don't want someone to look up "disabled users" or > "handicapped users" and think there's no relevant > information in the book. > > Erika Millen > Indianapolis > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:55:44 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181814.KAA10797@powergrid.electriciti.com> Please understand that significant numbers of people in the USA use either people or person. There is absolutely no rule about one word or the other. There is a connoted difference (backed up by Merriam-Webster 10th dictionary), with people for masses/groups and persons, for groups of individuals. A sentence would be: Many people believe persons should each make up one's own mind. Actually. I've heard some yanks claim to have completely given up on using "person," because usages such as chairperson offend them. The kinder part of me will not comment further on such thinking. Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:59:10 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: DBRENNER Subject: Turnover Time I am submitting an estimate for a ca. 400 page computer manual and was asked to estimate how long it would take. Since I have been working for publishers who (usually!) give me plenty of lead time, I just do the work as it comes and can usually turn most books around in less than a week. Here I don't know how complex the material will be (I've some small samples, but it seems to vary quite a bit). Also, how much extra time do people usually add to their estimates if they are asked to produce a Word-embedded index? I find it quite time consuming, but am not sure what publishers expect. Thanks Diane Brenner PO Box 206 Worthington, MA 01098 413-238-5593 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:09:09 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Turnover Time At 02:59 PM 3/18/98 EST, you wrote: > >Here I don't know how complex the material will be (I've some small samples, >but it seems to vary quite a bit). Computer stuff varies wildly. My own work varies from 7 pages per hour to over 30. > Also, how much extra time do people >usually add to their estimates if they are asked to produce a Word-embedded >index? More than double. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:39:00 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "John R. Sullivan" Subject: Re: turnover time I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional index. Do others who do embedded indexing find that to be the case? If so, my question is: Why? What is it about embedded indexing that causes such a huge increase in the amount of time needed to do an index? I'm not an indexer by trade, but I have produced many indexes. All have been of the embedded variety (Word and FrameMaker). (Just an aside -- I once asked a fellow tech writer what he thought about embedded indexing, and his response was "How else would you do it?") I can see how, for a first-time index, embedding index entries would increase the time needed to produce an index -- but "more than double"? John Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:58:46 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cheryl Jackson Subject: Re[2]: turnover time I do solely embedded indexing, primarily in Word, but also in PageMaker and QuarkXPress. I've found it to be an incredibly fast method of indexing, especially since the types of books I do (computer books) are not folioed until a couple of days before they ship to the printer. If I had to wait until the book was folioed before I could even start working on it, I'd never make my deadlines. I can index an average of 100 pages per 8-hour shift (I'm an in-house indexer) and can edit a typical index (anything up to approximately 40 pages; obviously, longer indexes will take longer to edit) in one 8-hour shift. Granted, some books will take longer to index, especially ones aimed at high-end users. Other books are incredibly easy, such as those for beginners or those that are very well-written and well organized. So, for the 400-page book given in the original question, I could probably do that book in about a week, maybe less if it's an easy title (probably is an easy one since it's so short for a computer book). I guess it's all in what a person gets used to in regards to how long it will take them to do embedded indexing as compared to using stand-alone indexing software. Cheryl Jackson Macmillan Computer Publishing ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: turnover time Author: "John R. Sullivan" at internet Date: 3/18/98 3:39 PM I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional index. Do others who do embedded indexing find that to be the case? If so, my question is: Why? What is it about embedded indexing that causes such a huge increase in the amount of time needed to do an index? I'm not an indexer by trade, but I have produced many indexes. All have been of the embedded variety (Word and FrameMaker). (Just an aside -- I once asked a fellow tech writer what he thought about embedded indexing, and his response was "How else would you do it?") I can see how, for a first-time index, embedding index entries would increase the time needed to produce an index -- but "more than double"? John Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:10:03 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Julie Knoeller Subject: Re: turnover time At 03:39 PM 3/18/98 EST, you wrote: >I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >index. Do others who do embedded indexing find that to be the case? Yes. > >If so, my question is: Why? What is it about embedded indexing that causes >such a huge increase in the amount of time needed to do an index? Embedded indexing programs (I've used Frame and Interleaf) are just tools for inserting hyperlinks; they are not INDEXING aids, no matter how they're marketed. They just pile a layer of obfuscation onto an already difficult process. The mindset needed to produce a good index and that needed to use embedding software are at different purposes. I've found it to be fastest and resulting in the best indexes to simply ignore the embedding software until the index is compiled and completely edited then retrofit it in with the embedder. Editing already embedded tags results in inCREDible time suckage. (I've found that writers indexing their own work with these programs usually don't have the time to do ANY editing of tags, and many wouldn't know what to do even if they did. But that's another problem...) Do I sound depressed about the state of indexing? It's cuz I AM. It makes my job difficult and me very cranky... 0000,8080,8080 0000,0000,8080Julie Knoeller Sr. Technical Editor Cisco Systems, Inc. "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise." 8080,0000,8080 --William Blake ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:20:59 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Seth A. Maislin" Subject: Re: turnover time In-Reply-To: John_Sullivan@vos.stratus.com "RE: turnover time" (Mar 18, 3:39pm) I agree with John, who says: > I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an > embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional > index. It shouldn't be double. But here's why people seem to think so. It's because they write their indexes without using the embedding software, and then they embed the data in a separate step. Personally, I think this is a bad idea; but I'll start by telling you why people think it's good. One word: *functionality*. Embedded indexing utilities (such as those with MS Word and FrameMaker and even PageMaker and Quark) are severely inferior to an index-dedicated application such as Cindex, Macrex, Windex, and so on. That's because embedded functionality is something *added* to the former, whereas the latter is specifically designed for writing indexes. Of course Cindex is going to better than Quark! Quark is a layout program! If an indexer is going to use an index-dedicated application first and then retype everything, not only is it going to take longer, there are going to be more mistakes. In addition, because embedded functionality is often insufficient, the indexer might write an index that's impossible once embedded. Something might not translate to the application in question. As a simple example, Microsoft Word does not allow you to provide manual sorting data; Macrex (and all the others) does. So when you manually sort something in Macrex and then embed into Word, you are wasting your time; Word won't let you keep that information. What indexers need to learn to do (ultimately) is to index using only the program you end the job with. That means learning how to index using Frame and Word and PageMaker and Quark -- and every program your clients want you to. I think that as indexers, if you are going to provide a Word index, you should learn how to index in Word. Clients do not have to pay double when, if you worked in the program to begin with, you would take at worst 150% of the time. (My guess is that, once you get good at what you're doing, on average it takes 125% the time to embed... unless you have a very slow processor.) It's not an easy process -- why would I speaking on this subject in Phoenix and in Chicago with only two weeks between the two! -- but I believe it's worth it, like learning to first work with a mouse or a split keyboard. I'm all for indexers getting paid what they are worth. If you learn how to index using Word -- and I mean, starting and ending with the application in question -- then you deserve a higher fee. Really! Demand it! There aren't many indexers out there who are comfortable giving up what they know and working with inferior programs *And*, when all is said and done, you'll find you *are* making double. :-) - Seth -- Seth A. Maislin (seth@oreilly.com) O'Reilly & Associates Focus Publishing Services 90 Sherman Street 89 Grove Street Cambridge MA 02140 Watertown MA 02172-2826 (617) 499-7439 phone (617) 924-4428 (617) 661-1116 facsimile smaislin@world.std.com URL: http://www.oreilly.com/~seth Webmaster, Amer Soc of Indexers: http://www.well.com/user/asi ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:07:26 LCL Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Victoria Baker Subject: politically aware indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181908.LAA12120@pacific.net> I am offended by the use of the term "politically correct." I could go into the history of the term as originally used as a critique of the left by the left. But what has happened is that the term has become a pejorative, and a separate and completely necessary issue thereby in danger of being lost. Sensitivity to labels is the issue. That was the query. IMO, persons who think they're excused from sensitivity because they once carried it too far need to do some more thinking on the subject. I would like to respectfully propose that we as indexers do ourselves a favor and adopt the terms "politically aware" or "sensitivity to labels" to address these questions. Then we'll be able to address the real questions instead of wasting time on whether we should be heeling to a buzzword. Best, Victoria ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:33:00 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "John R. Sullivan" Subject: Re: Turnover time Just a few observations about Julie Knoeller's comments about this topic -- in particular her statement: "I've found that writers indexing their own work with these programs usually don't have the time to do ANY editing of tags, and many wouldn't know what to do even if they did." As a writer who does his own indexing (that's just the way of the world in computer companies -- hiring an indexer is not even an option), I can relate to the "don't have the time" problem. Indexing is at the bottom of the priorities list. However, I always do my best to make sure the index is complete and accurate, even though I typically have had a maximum of 3 days to proofread, fix pagination, correct errors, fix TOC and cross-referencing, and fix index entries. The problem of writers not knowing how to edit index tags strikes me as serious. There's really not that much to it. FrameMaker is not indexing-friendly, I agree; I've found that IXGen eases the task greatly (it's a bit pricey, though, and adds another level of software complexity). In most computer documentation, embedded indexing is the ONLY way indexing can be done. My goal is to make the process of embedding index entries more efficient and less time-consuming, and I'm convinced that it's an achievable goal. John Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:51:06 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Erika Millen Subject: Re: turnover time >> I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >> embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a >> conventional index. > It shouldn't be double. But here's why people seem to think so. > It's because they write their indexes without using the embedding > software, and then they embed the data in a separate step. Do freelancers usually see the compiled index to make edits, or are the embedded codes expected to be "clean"? ("Clean" in the sense that the layout techs can just compile the embedded entries, lay out the index, and send it off to the printer without further work.) I index in-house and have the opportunity to make changes (*lots* of changes) to the final index, so embedded indexing works very well and saves the company a great deal of production time. But if the embedded codes have to be tidy and ready to go, I can see why it would take so much extra time. I would hate for anyone to see my "raw" index! Erika Millen Indianapolis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:43:30 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Jan C. Wright" Subject: Re: turnover time In-Reply-To: <199803182045.PAA04049@camel9.mindspring.com> Embedded indexing takes longer than standalone simply because there is more coding involved, and because you need to compile and re-edit the entry codes themselves, instead of working simply with the index content. Standalone tools are so much more powerful than any of the embedded indexing modules, and it takes very little time to get your index "right." You can focus completely on the content, not on the coding. Finding an entry to fix it takes a second: with embedded files, it takes significantly longer, especially with multiple file documents. Page ranging in all the embedded programs takes significantly longer. In standalone indexes, you type "92-95". You are done. That's it. In Word, you highlight the text covered, bookmark it by hitting a command, type the name for the bookmark, and then use the bookmark name in the index entry. In PageMaker you decide how much material the range will cover, and then figure out if "To the next change of head" will work. At times you are reduced to actually counting the number of paragraphs and entering. So you can see time wasted there. Debugging your compiled index also takes more time - with standalone indexing software you can essentially index and look at the compile at the same time. You always know what terms you were using. With most embedded software, you are indexing blind - you have to page back and see what you used for a certain topic. It is not at your fingertips. That takes time. Errors creep in easily - if someone else deletes your index codes, or if you have a different printer targeted then your client does, you can get errors and incorrect page numbers, especially in Word indexing. PageMaker index codes get corrupted, and give you weird page numbers at times. So there is time spent dealing with these problems. So for those folks who are producing indexes really fast with embedded software, just think how much faster you would be without all the constraints! You would be lightning fast! At 03:39 PM 3/18/98 EST, you wrote: >I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >index. Do others who do embedded indexing find that to be the case? > >If so, my question is: Why? What is it about embedded indexing that causes >such a huge increase in the amount of time needed to do an index? > >I'm not an indexer by trade, but I have produced many indexes. All have been >of the embedded variety (Word and FrameMaker). (Just an aside -- I once asked >a fellow tech writer what he thought about embedded indexing, and his >response was "How else would you do it?") I can see how, for a first-time >index, embedding index entries would increase the time needed to produce an >index -- but "more than double"? > >John Sullivan > Jan +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Jan C. Wright Wright Information Indexing Services Jancw@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~jancw +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:49:11 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Rachel Rice Subject: Re: turnover time I agree with Dick's estimate of extra time to do embedded indexing. I've done a few in Pagemaker and in some cases took more than twice as long as it would have with Cindex. The main problem I've found is not being able to view or edit the index without having to generate it each time you want to see it. This can take ages, even now with my fast computer. Also there are so many missing time savers that I can't even begin to list them. I avoid doing embedded indexes, except for situations I'll list below, for some, I'd charge double for sure. I have to see a couple of chapters (and not the first 2, usually, but something from the meaty middle) before I'll decide. If however, if the request is for a fairly light index without too much analysis, and/or the book is a simple how-to, or an extremely well-organized book with well-written heads, it can be very fast as you can tell Pagemaker to enter the page range to the next different head. That's one thing I love. If, of course, that's appropriate. Sometimes I've had to count pages or paragraphs, and if you don't have a hard copy, that's a major PITB. In those cases I would just charge the usual rate. Oh, one other case where I prefer embedded indexing is when there are a lot of unfamiliar words, or especially a lot of programmer words, like SFloat, or whatever, as then I don't have to worry about misspelling or mistyping anything. I guess I like it hate it about equally, but over all it takes me about twice as long to do an index in PM than in Cindex. Seth, I respectfully disagree with your comment, as I'm one who does tag the index entries in progress, not one who writes the index in one program and then goes back to Pagemaker or whatever and tags after, so while I agree that that is very time consuming, not all of us who dislike doing embedded indexes do it the way you mentioned--and note I'm not taking offense, just putting in another viewpoint. I do agree with you that it's in all our best interests to learn to index in whatever format the client requests. My question: Are we expected to own all of the possible applications? PM, Quark, FM, and Word add up to over $2,000. Just asking. You know you've been working too many hours when you go to update your check book computer program (I use Quicken) and instead of just pressing enter, you press command-K which is the Mac command for entering an index entry and bringing up the next entry screen. I did this over and over while doing my checkbook. Time for a vacation. Rachel >I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >index. Do others who do embedded indexing find that to be the case? > >If so, my question is: Why? What is it about embedded indexing that causes >such a huge increase in the amount of time needed to do an index? > >I'm not an indexer by trade, but I have produced many indexes. All have been >of the embedded variety (Word and FrameMaker). (Just an aside -- I once asked >a fellow tech writer what he thought about embedded indexing, and his >response was "How else would you do it?") I can see how, for a first-time >index, embedding index entries would increase the time needed to produce an >index -- but "more than double"? > >John Sullivan Rachel Rice Directions Unlimited Desktop Services Indexing, editing, proofreading http://homepages.together.net/~racric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:54:03 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Julie Knoeller Subject: Re: Turnover time John, I didn't mean that they didn't know how to use Frame, they often just aren't schooled in the indexing methods themselves. I'm sure they mean well, and they certainly have heir own crosses to bear as writers (I know, I've been a writer, editor, and indexer). I think what most Managers don't realize is that if you add up all the time writers spend fumbling through indexing (fumbling, because it is not their primary concern and they usually don't have training or practice) and factor in the mediocrity of the results, most departments could afford a dedicated indexer or contractor. I was ranting a bit there--sorry for the confusion. jk At 04:33 PM 3/18/98 EST, you wrote: >Just a few observations about Julie Knoeller's comments about this topic -- >in particular her statement: > >"I've found that writers indexing their own work with these programs usually >don't have the time to do ANY editing of tags, and many wouldn't know what to >do even if they did." > >As a writer who does his own indexing (that's just the way of the world in >computer companies -- hiring an indexer is not even an option), I can relate >to the "don't have the time" problem. Indexing is at the bottom of the >priorities list. However, I always do my best to make sure the index is >complete and accurate, even though I typically have had a maximum of 3 days >to proofread, fix pagination, correct errors, fix TOC and cross-referencing, >and fix index entries. > >The problem of writers not knowing how to edit index tags strikes me as >serious. There's really not that much to it. FrameMaker is not >indexing-friendly, I agree; I've found that IXGen eases the task greatly >(it's a bit pricey, though, and adds another level of software complexity). > >In most computer documentation, embedded indexing is the ONLY way indexing >can be done. My goal is to make the process of embedding index entries more >efficient and less time-consuming, and I'm convinced that it's an achievable >goal. > >John Sullivan > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:16:50 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Vanessa Glover Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector Subject: Re: turnover time I currently find myself in an interesting position that I think relates to this question (although I don't have the answer). I have less than 2 weeks to index and edit a 1000+ page book (I know, I know. I try not to think about this ridiculous schedule). I use FrameMaker's embedded indexing tool, and in the past I've loved it (that was when I dealt with 500 page books and had 2 weeks to index and another to edit) but I spent this past weekend trying to index the 37 chapters in this hi-tech manual (my company produces microchips for printers, modems, etc and our documentation describes what the chips do) using Frame and all I could think of was, "Boy, I sure do bet it would be nice to use a standalone indexing package for this. I wonder if I would actually be able see the index I'm building without having to spend 30 minutes waiting for the book to regenerate each time I want to check it. Wow, that must be really nice. I'll have to look into that.... " I said this, and other variations, to myself at least 20 times. I really envy the convenience of being able to see where you're going (conventional/standalone software) versus indexing blind (embedded). I can easily imagine embedded indexing taking longer than conventional indexing. By the way, I think I remember hearing at one of the indexing sessions at last year's STC conference that there is a product that allows you view a Frame index while you build it. Does anyone know what this is? Is it IXGen? I'll have to dig out my old STC notes and see if I wrote that down. Vanessa John R. Sullivan wrote: > > I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an > embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional > index. Do others who do embedded indexing find that to be the case? > > If so, my question is: Why? What is it about embedded indexing that causes > such a huge increase in the amount of time needed to do an index? > > I'm not an indexer by trade, but I have produced many indexes. All have been > of the embedded variety (Word and FrameMaker). (Just an aside -- I once asked > a fellow tech writer what he thought about embedded indexing, and his > response was "How else would you do it?") I can see how, for a first-time > index, embedding index entries would increase the time needed to produce an > index -- but "more than double"? > > John Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:17:39 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: How politically refreshing! In-Reply-To: <199803182131.NAA21277@powergrid.electriciti.com> Victoria: I couldn't agree more with your posting on political correctness (the red-baiting of the 1990s). You may note that I originally posted that I found politically correct to be an offensive term. It amazes me that the term has become such an acceptable guilt-tripping mind sledgehammer, when much of the (post-Leftist usage) early charges were that those who were politically correct were the guilt-trippers. I refuse to a apologize for using accurate language. Thanks! Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:50:12 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: turnover time Something eludes me about this. At 04:20 PM 3/18/98 -0500, Seth wrote: >I agree with John, who says: > >> I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >> embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >> index. > >It shouldn't be double. But here's why people seem to think so. It's because >they write their indexes without using the embedding software, and then they >embed the data in a separate step. OK, so far I understand. This is indeed how I work on those rare occasions I absoutely have to embed tags. > >Personally, I think this is a bad idea; but I'll start by telling you why >people think it's good. This is where I start to get lost. I don't see you ever supporting this point. >One word: *functionality*. Embedded indexing utilities >(such as those with MS Word and FrameMaker and even PageMaker and Quark) are >severely inferior to an index-dedicated application such as Cindex, Macrex, >Windex, and so on. That's because embedded functionality is something *added* >to the former, whereas the latter is specifically designed for writing indexes. >Of course Cindex is going to better than Quark! Quark is a layout program! So far, you seem to be making my point: embedded indexing tools are less efficient than dedicated programs. > >If an indexer is going to use an index-dedicated application first and >then retype everything, not only is it going to take longer, there are >going to be more mistakes. In addition, because embedded functionality is >often insufficient, the indexer might write an index that's impossible >once embedded. Something might not translate to the application >in question. As a simple example, Microsoft Word does not allow you to >provide manual sorting data; Macrex (and all the others) does. So when you >manually sort something in Macrex and then embed into Word, you are wasting >your time; Word won't let you keep that information. Still supporting my point. > >What indexers need to learn to do (ultimately) is to index using only the >program you end the job with. That means learning how to index using Frame >and Word and PageMaker and Quark -- and every program your clients want you >to. I think that as indexers, if you are going to provide a Word index, you >should learn how to index in Word. Clients do not have to pay double when, >if you worked in the program to begin with, you would take at worst 150% of >the time. (My guess is that, once you get good at what you're doing, on >average it takes 125% the time to embed... unless you have a very slow >processor.) So far you still haven't made a point that embedding is better, only that if one really applies oneself then one can create an index with only 25% more effort than using a standalone package. > >It's not an easy process -- why would I speaking on this subject in Phoenix >and in Chicago with only two weeks between the two! - but I believe it's worth >it, like learning to first work with a mouse or a split keyboard. Where's the advantage??? > >I'm all for indexers getting paid what they are worth. If you learn how to >index using Word -- and I mean, starting and ending with the application >in question -- then you deserve a higher fee. Really! Demand it! There >aren't many indexers out there who are comfortable giving up what they >know and working with inferior programs Exactly! The only compelling reason to use embedding is that the client insists on it. From an indexer's standpoint, there is no advantage. >*And*, when all is said and done, you'll find you *are* making double. :-) How?? You mean clients who won't now pay me double when I'm spending twice the time will suddenly agree to pay double when I'm spending only 25% more time? Sorry, Seth, you lost me on this one. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:12:05 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Locatelli Subject: 21st-century indexes An editor I work for at Columbia University Press asked me the following. "We're putting a lot of the special-interest titles up on a website ( you have to subscribe to it) after publication, so they appear as a book (with limited print run) as well as online. Eventually we may do away with the print run altogether and just offer individuals a printed copy if they request it. What do you think this will do to indexing? Obviously, if they read the stuff online, they can use the search engine, and in effect create their own index; but if we print out a copy and send it to them, it ought to have one, eh?" I've already replied to the editor, but I'd be interested in your comments and responses to his question. (He gave me permission to forward his query here.) Fred Leise Between the Lines Indexing and Editorial Services ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:07:44 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "J.A Binns" Subject: Re: Turnover time Not being familiar with embedded indexing (apart from seeing the disastrous results produced by an acquaintance who used Word to index the book he had written), I looked up the topic in Hans Wellisch 'Indexing from A-Z' (2nd ed. 1996) and Nancy Mulvany 'Indexing books' (1994). Both are extremely critical of embedded indexing software and devote several pages to the problems and pitfalls of this method of producing an index. To quote just snippets from each: Mulvany - 'For the most part, the sorting routines employed in embedded indexing software do not conform to standard alphabetizing requirements of American publishers or national and international index standards. The formatting capabilities of embedded indexing software are extremely limited. The time required to enter embedded index entries and then edit embedded entries is much greater than the time required to perform the same tasks using other index-writing tools.' Wellisch talks of 'The deficiencies, faults, and dangers of embedded indexing modules which are hawked by highly deceptive if not outright fraudulent slogans such as "with just a click of the mouse, you create back-of-the-book indexes!"... These devices cannot produce an index, that is, a key to concepts dealt within a text, and their relationships to other concepts in that text. They are designed by people whose idea of an index is an alphabetical list of words extracted from a text plus their locators.' I know computer software is being developed at a tremendous rate, but has it really improved significantly in the relatively short time since these books were published? I shall continue to use Macrex! Incidentally, am I the only person on the list who has never indexed a computer manual? Margaret Binns ============================================= Margaret Binns binns@hangleton.u-net.com ============================================= ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:15:24 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Turnover time At 10:07 AM 3/19/98 +0000, you wrote: > >Wellisch talks of 'The deficiencies, faults, and dangers of embedded >indexing modules which are hawked by highly deceptive if not outright >fraudulent slogans such as "with just a click of the mouse, you create >back-of-the-book indexes!"... >I know computer software is being developed at a tremendous rate, but has >it really improved significantly in the relatively short time since these >books were published? Yes, it has. Indexicon, the product that made the boast quoted by Wellisch, has gone out of business. I consider that a significant improvement. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:11:40 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Kennedy Subject: Re: Re[2]: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181740.LAA23603@mail.minn.net> At 09:25 AM 3/18/98 -0800, you wrote: > > Wouldn't this logic dictate entries such as: > > Diabetes > persons affected with (thus adding an extra, and unnecessary, level) > > Persons > diabetes affected > visually impaired If you have no other subheads for "Diabetes," you can use "Diabetes, persons affected with" (I wouldn't, but you could) and still have only one level. If you do have other subheads, your objection disappears. I can't think of any instance in which I would use your second example at all. What would be its point? Who would look under "Persons"in this context? Best wishes, Carol Kennedy colfaxgp@minn.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:44:00 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "John R. Sullivan" Subject: Re: turnover time I appreciate the lively discussion of the embedded indexing issue. The thing I want to stress, though, is that in my work, embedded indexing is the ONLY reasonable way to index. I doubt that I will ever prepare an index any other way. That doesn't mean that my indexes are inferior. There is no "evil" in the embedded indexing capabilities of products such as Word or FrameMaker (and these are the types of products that I'm referring to when speaking of embedded indexing -- Indexicon is another matter entirely). As with so many other things, we each use the methods and tools that are best suited for the tasks we face. Dedicated indexing software is no more "valid" a tool than embedded indexing. By the way, I'm probably one of the few people who actually owns a copy of Indexicon. The "automatic" indexes it creates are a joke; however, it does have some other capabilities that make it a useful supplement to Word's embedded indexing. Once, again, I appreciate everyone's input on this topic. And now I'm going to shut up about it! John Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:05:30 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Joanne E. Clendenen" Organization: AfterWords Indexing Services Subject: South Central Chapter Conference Hi all, Just a reminder that we'd love to see you at our conference on Mar. 28. If you lost your flyer, here's another chance to check it out. We need to give the hotel a head count by Wednesday next: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INDEXERS South Central Chapter SPRING MEETING, 1998 Editing the Index: Decisions, Decisions, Decisions A Practical Workshop Presented by Kay Banning and Linda Webster This intermediate-level workshop provides editing techniques and checklists with examples from a variety of subject fields in both book and journal indexing. Practical suggestions and hands-on exercises address wording of main headings and subheadings, conceptual structure of the index, cross-references and shortening of the index. Editing the index= Substantive editing + Copyediting and Proofreading. Linda Webster has been indexing for 20 years, and has been a full-time freelance indexer for 14 years. She produces back-of-the-book indexes primarily in the humanities and social sciences for university textbooks, scholarly university press books, and trade books. She has also done periodical and database indexing, and is beginning to do occasional CD ROM indexing. Linda has taught the Indexing and Abstracting course at the University of Texas Graduate School of Library and Information Science in Austin. Kay Banning began indexing 7 years ago, as an apprentice under Linda Webster. She primarily produces back-of-the-book indexes for university press books, college textbooks, and trade books in the humanities, social sciences, education and history. She also has experience in journal indexing and database indexing. Kay has an MLS from Indiana University and served as a reference librarian in academic and public libraries before launching her freelance business. DATE: March 28, 1998 LOCATION: Radisson Hotel near Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas (9100 Gulf Freeway, Houston, 77017) CONTACTS: Laura Rustin at 713-728-4473/E-Mail: lrr@freebird.ghofn.org OR Joanne Clendenen at 281-469-4461/E-Mail: jbclend@bigfoot.com SCHEDULE OF EVENTS: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Editing the Index, Part I 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Luncheon Buffet at Radisson Hotel 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Editing the Index, Part II 4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. South Central Chapter Business Meeting COSTS: $60.00 per ASI member $75.00 per non-member Registration includes the all-day workshop, plus mini-continental breakfast, hot buffet lunch and post-lunch snacks. Please make checks payable to ASI South Central Chapter, and mail to our treasurer: Laura Rustin 9731 Greenwillow Houston, TX 77096 Laura will provide receipts upon request. LODGING: $69.00 per night Call the Radisson at 713-943-7979 to reserve a room. In order to receive the above rate, you must mention the American Society of Indexers conference, and in order to guarantee availability, you must place your reservation by Feb 14. After that date, reservations will be accepted on a space- and rate-available basis. GETTING THERE: The Radisson is located on the West side of the Gulf Freeway (I-45). If you are coming by plane, Hobby Airport is about 1/2 mile from the hotel. The Radisson provides shuttle service from the airport to the hotel. Ask about the shuttle when you make hotel reservations. For those driving in, the hotel is on the southbound side of I-45 in Southeast Houston, just beyond the Airport Blvd to Hobby. When you drive south on I45, you need to take the College Airport exit; the hotel will be off the frontage road on your right. -- AfterWords Indexing Services Joanne E. Clendenen email: jbclend@bigfoot.com http://www.flash.net/~jbclend ---------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." Einstein ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:03:29 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cheryl Jackson Subject: Re[2]: turnover time I think one of the major advantages of embedded indexing is that it can be done before the book is laid out, even before all the chapters have been written if necessary. As I said in my previous email (I'm sorry if I came across too harshly in that one -- I was in a hurry when I wrote it and didn't have a chance to re-read it before hitting "send"), the books we do here don't have page numbers until just a few days before they go to the printer; therefore, I and the other indexers here don't have time to do anything but embedded indexing. Another advantage is that if a book is reprinted or published as another edition with some text changes/additions, then the original indexing codes are still in the chapters and the book doesn't have to be indexed from scratch. Only the text changes/additions will need to be coded, then the index can be compiled and edited as usual. Saves a tremendous amount of time on a 1000-page computer manual, believe me! Cheryl Jackson Macmillan Computer Publishing ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: turnover time Author: Richard Evans at internet Date: 3/18/98 7:50 PM Something eludes me about this. At 04:20 PM 3/18/98 -0500, Seth wrote: >I agree with John, who says: > >> I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >> embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >> index. > >It shouldn't be double. But here's why people seem to think so. It's because >they write their indexes without using the embedding software, and then they >embed the data in a separate step. OK, so far I understand. This is indeed how I work on those rare occasions I absoutely have to embed tags. > >Personally, I think this is a bad idea; but I'll start by telling you why >people think it's good. This is where I start to get lost. I don't see you ever supporting this point. >One word: *functionality*. Embedded indexing utilities >(such as those with MS Word and FrameMaker and even PageMaker and Quark) are >severely inferior to an index-dedicated application such as Cindex, Macrex, >Windex, and so on. That's because embedded functionality is something *added* >to the former, whereas the latter is specifically designed for writing indexes. >Of course Cindex is going to better than Quark! Quark is a layout program! So far, you seem to be making my point: embedded indexing tools are less efficient than dedicated programs. > >If an indexer is going to use an index-dedicated application first and >then retype everything, not only is it going to take longer, there are >going to be more mistakes. In addition, because embedded functionality is >often insufficient, the indexer might write an index that's impossible >once embedded. Something might not translate to the application >in question. As a simple example, Microsoft Word does not allow you to >provide manual sorting data; Macrex (and all the others) does. So when you >manually sort something in Macrex and then embed into Word, you are wasting >your time; Word won't let you keep that information. Still supporting my point. > >What indexers need to learn to do (ultimately) is to index using only the >program you end the job with. That means learning how to index using Frame >and Word and PageMaker and Quark -- and every program your clients want you >to. I think that as indexers, if you are going to provide a Word index, you >should learn how to index in Word. Clients do not have to pay double when, >if you worked in the program to begin with, you would take at worst 150% of >the time. (My guess is that, once you get good at what you're doing, on >average it takes 125% the time to embed... unless you have a very slow >processor.) So far you still haven't made a point that embedding is better, only that if one really applies oneself then one can create an index with only 25% more effort than using a standalone package. > >It's not an easy process -- why would I speaking on this subject in Phoenix >and in Chicago with only two weeks between the two! - but I believe it's worth >it, like learning to first work with a mouse or a split keyboard. Where's the advantage??? > >I'm all for indexers getting paid what they are worth. If you learn how to >index using Word -- and I mean, starting and ending with the application >in question -- then you deserve a higher fee. Really! Demand it! There >aren't many indexers out there who are comfortable giving up what they >know and working with inferior programs Exactly! The only compelling reason to use embedding is that the client insists on it. From an indexer's standpoint, there is no advantage. >*And*, when all is said and done, you'll find you *are* making double. :-) How?? You mean clients who won't now pay me double when I'm spending twice the time will suddenly agree to pay double when I'm spending only 25% more time? Sorry, Seth, you lost me on this one. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:36:40 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sharon Wright Subject: 21st-century indexes -Reply Nothing will happen to indexing, as anyone who has ever tried to do real research using search engines has discovered. Search engines have the same major flaw that so-called "automatic indexing" programs have-- they are dumb, in the sense that they can only recognize patterns. What they cannot do is organize information topically or thematically-- they are pretty much limited to word search capability. There will still be a need for indexers-- PEOPLE!-- to organize, arrange and collect interrelated topics. This is an issue that we deal with here at Lexis Law Publishing (formerly Michie) in the context of our tie-in with our parent company LEXIS-NEXIS, which is a huge online research company. Word searches are of limited use, and what they produce is really more of a concordance than an index. You can find how often a word is used, but not whether other, similar words have been used to describe the same topic (or whether the word has been misspelled, which means that it doesn't show up in the search engine). You also can't control for homonyms. One of the more hilarious examples that we have to deal with is the two very different definitions of the word "committee." If you accent the second syllable (the most common usage), you have a group of people, usually a government body, organized to perform certain tasks. If you accent the third syllable, you have a legal term that refers to someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility or correctional institution! Some would argue that the distinction is a minor one, but we usually make an effort to separate these two definitions into distinct main headings. :-) As long as people use different language to describe the same thing, there will always be a need for indexers to organize and collect it in a searchable fashion. It may mean using different tools to create online indexes instead of printed ones, but the mental processes will remain the same. Cheers! - Sharon W. >>> Locatelli 03/19/98 12:12am >>> An editor I work for at Columbia University Press asked me the following. "We're putting a lot of the special-interest titles up on a website ( you have to subscribe to it) after publication, so they appear as a book (with limited print run) as well as online. Eventually we may do away with the print run altogether and just offer individuals a printed copy if they request it. What do you think this will do to indexing? Obviously, if they read the stuff online, they can use the search engine, and in effect create their own index; but if we print out a copy and send it to them, it ought to have one, eh?" I've already replied to the editor, but I'd be interested in your comments and responses to his question. (He gave me permission to forward his query here.) Fred Leise Between the Lines Indexing and Editorial Services ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:45:53 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sharon Wright Subject: Re: turnover time -Reply I agree with John. A good indexer can produce an acceptable index with a pile of index cards and a typewriter, if need be (and as recently as 10 years ago, many of us were!). The tools do not reflect the quality of the index. What they do reflect is time, and time is money. Dedicated indexing software is probably usually faster for most indexing tasks, but if the client insists on or needs embedded indexing and if the indexer is proficient with the tool, my guess is that it all sorts out in the wash. No need to get into quality issues... that's not what this discussion was originally about. A good tool does not necessarily produce a good product and vice versa. Knowing how to use it is far more important. Just my 2 cents... -- Sharon W. >>> John R. Sullivan 03/19/98 08:44am >>> I appreciate the lively discussion of the embedded indexing issue. The thing I want to stress, though, is that in my work, embedded indexing is the ONLY reasonable way to index. I doubt that I will ever prepare an index any other way. That doesn't mean that my indexes are inferior. There is no "evil" in the embedded indexing capabilities of products such as Word or FrameMaker (and these are the types of products that I'm referring to when speaking of embedded indexing -- Indexicon is another matter entirely). As with so many other things, we each use the methods and tools that are best suited for the tasks we face. Dedicated indexing software is no more "valid" a tool than embedded indexing. By the way, I'm probably one of the few people who actually owns a copy of Indexicon. The "automatic" indexes it creates are a joke; however, it does have some other capabilities that make it a useful supplement to Word's embedded indexing. Once, again, I appreciate everyone's input on this topic. And now I'm going to shut up about it! John Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:31:51 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cheryl Jackson Subject: Re[2]: Turnover time In response to the Wellisch quote, embedded indexing software (at least for the programs I've worked with -- PageMaker, Quark, Word, and FrameMaker) is much more than a concordance-generator. It takes just as much thought and consideration to produce an index using embedded indexing techniques as it does to produce an index using dedicated indexing software. I still have to read the text and decide what is worth including in the index and what is not and how everything relates together and how those relationships should be expressed in the final index. As for the Mulvany quote, I will concede that for the most part embedded indexing software does not sort entries very well. PageMaker has a workable sort feature, but Word and Quark do not (at least Quark 3.3 doesn't; I haven't seen Quark 4.0 yet). In my previous response, I meant to also include a comment about "indexing blind" when using embedded indexing software. Granted, I can't just look at the screen and immediately see what my finished index will look like, but I can do mini-compiles in Word, or use the Show Index feature in PageMaker, to see how my index looks so far. (Can't do that with Quark 3.3. I hope that was changed in Quark 4.0.) I also keep extensive notes for each title so that I know what terms I have been using, how I've been organizing main topics, and what see references I've used. Those notes make my codes much more consistent and my final edits much easier and faster. Cheryl Jackson Macmillan Computer Publishing ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Turnover time Author: "J.A Binns" at internet Date: 3/19/98 10:07 AM Not being familiar with embedded indexing (apart from seeing the disastrous results produced by an acquaintance who used Word to index the book he had written), I looked up the topic in Hans Wellisch 'Indexing from A-Z' (2nd ed. 1996) and Nancy Mulvany 'Indexing books' (1994). Both are extremely critical of embedded indexing software and devote several pages to the problems and pitfalls of this method of producing an index. To quote just snippets from each: Mulvany - 'For the most part, the sorting routines employed in embedded indexing software do not conform to standard alphabetizing requirements of American publishers or national and international index standards. The formatting capabilities of embedded indexing software are extremely limited. The time required to enter embedded index entries and then edit embedded entries is much greater than the time required to perform the same tasks using other index-writing tools.' Wellisch talks of 'The deficiencies, faults, and dangers of embedded indexing modules which are hawked by highly deceptive if not outright fraudulent slogans such as "with just a click of the mouse, you create back-of-the-book indexes!"... These devices cannot produce an index, that is, a key to concepts dealt within a text, and their relationships to other concepts in that text. They are designed by people whose idea of an index is an alphabetical list of words extracted from a text plus their locators.' I know computer software is being developed at a tremendous rate, but has it really improved significantly in the relatively short time since these books were published? I shall continue to use Macrex! Incidentally, am I the only person on the list who has never indexed a computer manual? Margaret Binns ============================================= Margaret Binns binns@hangleton.u-net.com ============================================= ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:18:37 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Erika Millen Subject: turnover time/embedded indexing Margaret Binns writes: Mulvany - 'For the most part, the sorting routines employed in embedded indexing software do not conform to standard alphabetizing requirements of American publishers or national and international index standards. The formatting capabilities of embedded indexing software are extremely limited. The time required to enter embedded index entries and then edit embedded entries is much greater than the time required to perform the same tasks using other index-writing tools.' I know computer software is being developed at a tremendous rate, but has it really improved significantly in the relatively short time since these books were published? I shall continue to use Macrex! Incidentally, am I the only person on the list who has never indexed a computer manual? Margaret, Mulvaney is right... embedded indexing tools have a number of limitations, and even the best embedded tool is no match for a dedicated indexing program. If you don't *need* to work with embedding software, there's definitely no reason to start! :) The main advantage to embedded indexing is that the book can be indexed before the page breaks are set and before the final edits are completed. For example, I just finished indexing a book that is now going through production. As soon as the final edits are completed and the page breaks are finalized, I'll compile and edit the index, and the book will be sent to the printer the next day. I may have spent more time on the indexing process, but since I'm working on on it at the same time as the editorial team, that extra time hasn't delayed the release of the book. If I used standalone software, but I'd need an additional 2-4 weeks after the page breaks are finalized in order to create the index. I know, that doesn't seem like a big deal! But since computer manuals have a life of 6-8 months (they become outdated *sooo* quickly), that extra month can really impact the success of the book. Strong book sales help the publisher... who then can afford to hire more indexers... which creates more work for us. And sometimes these books are just updated so frequently that re-indexing the entire book each time is simply not an option. That's where embedded indexing can be an advantage. I don't think anyone agrees that embedded indexing software is the best possible tool for indexing. But since our career is tied to the success of the publishing industry, sometimes the best tool for indexing is not the best tool for the situation as a whole. Sometimes a publisher has a legitimate need for embedded indexing. (They're not just trying to make our lives miserable. ) It's not ideal, but it's the nature of the business. And really, I think embedded indexing is only an issue in computer book publishing anyway. I hope this makes sense... :) Erika Millen Indianapolis ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:47:29 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Jan C. Wright" Subject: Re: turnover time/embedded indexing In-Reply-To: <199803191611.LAA13594@camel16.mindspring.com> >> And really, I think embedded indexing is only an issue in computer book publishing anyway.<< Not so any more. It is really branching out into other disciplines. One reason is that if you embed index codes in a PageMaker file, you can take that file and generate an online PDF document with a hyperactive index. Frame does similar things, and Word files can be used to single-source print and online versions of books as well. I just finished an index for a state insurance office that needed files in both print and online formats, and we embedded so that the online index would be hyperactive. So I think lots of disciplines will be interested in this more and more. I don't do what Seth does, though, and index entirely in the tool, and here's why. Often at the time that the indexing needs to be done, the production staff also desperately needs the files to get them ready from print-production. Final text tweaks, graphic tweaks, text changes, ragging, page breaking, etc. So I work outside of the files so that the staff can have their files as long as possible, and I minimize my time hoarding them to myself. You have to know how to index in the tool inside and out, though, to make this work. You have to predict accurately what will happen when you take the index into the tool. So I only have the files in my hands long enough to embed the codes and compile and test the index. So I think I get the best of both worlds - I write the index where it is easiest, and then embed it. But you do have to know your tool to do this. I think you will see embedded indexing asked for more and more, myself. Learning how to do it well, learning how to get around the limitations and still produce a first class index, and most importantly, charging hourly!!!! is a worthwhile thing to do. Yes, it takes some time, but there's ways to make it more efficient. At 11:18 AM 3/19/98 -0500, you wrote: >Margaret Binns writes: > > Mulvany - 'For the most part, the sorting routines employed in > embedded indexing software do not conform to standard > alphabetizing requirements of American publishers or national > and international index standards. The formatting capabilities > of embedded indexing software are extremely limited. The time > required to enter embedded index entries and then edit embedded > entries is much greater than the time required to perform the > same tasks using other index-writing tools.' > > I know computer software is being developed at a tremendous > rate, but has it really improved significantly in the > relatively short time since these books were published? I shall > continue to use Macrex! Incidentally, am I the only person on > the list who has never indexed a computer manual? > > > Margaret, > > Mulvaney is right... embedded indexing tools have a number of > limitations, and even the best embedded tool is no match for a > dedicated indexing program. If you don't *need* to work with > embedding software, there's definitely no reason to start! :) > > The main advantage to embedded indexing is that the book can be > indexed before the page breaks are set and before the final > edits are completed. For example, I just finished indexing a book > that is now going through production. As soon as the final edits are > completed and the page breaks are finalized, I'll compile and edit > the index, and the book will be sent to the printer the next day. I > may have spent more time on the indexing process, but since I'm working on > on it at the same time as the editorial team, that extra time hasn't > delayed the release of the book. > > If I used standalone software, but I'd need an additional > 2-4 weeks after the page breaks are finalized in order to create > the index. I know, that doesn't seem like a big deal! But > since computer manuals have a life of 6-8 months (they become > outdated *sooo* quickly), that extra month can really impact > the success of the book. Strong book sales help the publisher... > who then can afford to hire more indexers... which creates more > work for us. And sometimes these books are just updated so frequently > that re-indexing the entire book each time is simply not an option. > That's where embedded indexing can be an advantage. > > I don't think anyone agrees that embedded indexing software is > the best possible tool for indexing. But since our career is tied > to the success of the publishing industry, sometimes the best tool > for indexing is not the best tool for the situation as a whole. > Sometimes a publisher has a legitimate need for embedded indexing. > (They're not just trying to make our lives miserable. ) > It's not ideal, but it's the nature of the business. And really, > I think embedded indexing is only an issue in computer book publishing > anyway. > > I hope this makes sense... :) > > Erika Millen > Indianapolis > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:59:54 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Rachel Rice Subject: oh, forgot Oh, I forgot to tell you. I got a call from my insurance company saying, We don't sell insurance in VT and we don't know how you slipped through,but you'll have to find other coverage. So I did, and it's 40 bucks a month cheaper. It has some better things and some worse things, there's a higher self-pay if something happens (always the risk, of course) but worst case is $3500/year, so I decided to take the chance and have a much lower premium. It does have better regular doctor visit coverage by quite a bit, only a $10 copay instead of no coverage for doctors at all. So I think it's going to be better in the long run. Also my car registration and insurance are taken care of. I got a package deal for car and home, so I paid the home insurance. I should be getting a refund on what you and I paid for the other insurance. I can either send it back to you or keep it for the condo fee. Don't know when it will come. Anyway, going to run a few errands in the rain, and come home and do some studying. I thought never to have to do it again. I keep wondering why I'm bothering. Oh well, we'll see. Love, Me Rachel Rice Directions Unlimited Desktop Services Indexing, editing, proofreading http://homepages.together.net/~racric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:01:11 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: turnover time In-Reply-To: <199803190515.XAA18819@mixcom.mixcom.com> >I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >index. I'm curious, too. Dick, is that because you do the whole thing using the word-proc. indexing feature, from start to finish? That is, I've often thought one could make embedded indexing bearable/feasible by doing the index in Cindex (or whatever real indexing software you have) first and then simply using that index as a guide to placing the tags (i.e., embedding). (Julie, that's what you're talking about, right? I love your phrase "time suckage.") That way, you get all the advantages that stand-alone indexing software has to offer (especially speed and ease of seeing the index's structure) while still providing what the client wants. Does anyone out there do it this way? If so, could you let us all know how much extra time it takes over just creating a stand-alone index? Uh oh, reading the digest further, I see that Seth hates the idea. ;-) You make some valid points, Seth, but why couldn't you simply familiarize yourself with the embedding function (without actually using it initially), so as to *avoid* doing things in Cindex or Macrex that aren't preserved when you get to the embedding? This situation seems analogous to the relationship between MS Word and PageMaker. When I was an in-house editor, we editors worked on the text in Word, cuz that was the right tool for the job. Then we gave the edited ms. to the designer, who exported it to PageMaker, for layout. Now, even though you can edit text in PageMaker, it was far too slow and clunky to be feasible to do it that way. And not because *I* was slow and clunky--I knew my way around PageMaker pretty well. Hey, wouldn't a contest between the two methods make a really cool event at the ASI conference! (No, I'm not volunteering.) I don't mean to be challenging you . . . well, OK, I guess I am challenging you. Looking forward to hearing more about this in Chicago on the 28th. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:30:59 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: turnover time At 12:01 PM 3/19/98 -0600, you wrote: >>I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >>embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >>index. > >I'm curious, too. Dick, is that because you do the whole thing using the >word-proc. indexing feature, from start to finish? That is, I've often >thought one could make embedded indexing bearable/feasible by doing the >index in Cindex (or whatever real indexing software you have) first and >then simply using that index as a guide to placing the tags (i.e., >embedding). That's how I do it. The "time suckage" (love it!) occurs from the incredible amount of time required to do the tagging. Page ranges alone are time consuming (I'm talking about MS-Word, other packages may vary). You have to select the page range, calll up a dialog box, create and name a bookmark that spans the range. To subsequently use that range in an index entry, you have to call up the index entry dialog box, and enter the bookmark name in the locator field. I found that, on the average, I was spending one minute per tagged entry. *ONE MINUTE PER ENTRY* contrast that to CIndex, where time is measured in split seconds. Case in point. I had created the Cindex index and was tagging the Word file. I discovered a primary entry with 85 subentries that I had forgotten to cross-post. I went back to Cindex, made the cross postings in a matter of seconds. I then printed the results and went back to Word to tag the 85 entries. It took me an hour and a half! Admittedly, I only do about one of these a year and thus don't get much practice. If I were dedicated to using Word, I could probably improve with practice, but the whole process sucks the joy out of indexing for me. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:51:58 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Seth A. Maislin" Subject: Re: turnover time In-Reply-To: Carol Roberts "Re: turnover time" (Mar 19, 12:01pm) Carol, who challenges me :-), writes: > When I was an in-house editor, we editors > worked on the text in Word, cuz that was the right tool for the job. Then > we gave the edited ms. to the designer, who exported it to PageMaker, for > layout. Now, even though you can edit text in PageMaker, it was far too > slow and clunky to be feasible to do it that way. And not because *I* was > slow and clunky--I knew my way around PageMaker pretty well. Unfortunately, the analogy doesn't quite work, because there is no automatic translation possible from a standalone index to an embedded index. Otherwise, I think it would be a great idea. Your analogy fits better with the idea of tools to help people write HTML documents without having to do any actual coding. This way a person can format a document using the tool, and then the "automatic translation" to HTML takes place afterwards -- the computer determines what the appropriate HTML tags should be. The translation pretty much works back and forth, too. Finally, a knowledge of HTML isn't necessarily required, but boy does it help! With embedded indexing, though, you have to have additional information than you do when you write standalone indexes. That information is *where on the page* (or in the document) the information is. When I write a standalone index, all I need is a page number. With embedded indexing, I need to have a much more precise locator, sometimes down the phrase. ----------------- I think index-dedicated applications are great. They are faster and more convenient. It takes *less time* to write an index with Cindex (for example) than with Microsoft Word (for example). You create a *better* index with Cindex than with Word. So if my goal were simply to write an index, which would I prefer: Cindex or Word? DUH! I would choose the faster, better program. But in some environments, an embedded index is a *requirement*: if you want an index on CD-ROM (with links); if your book is going to [re]published online; if you know in advance that you are going to publish many editions of a book or manual; if you are indexing a book that is still in production (that is, a book without finalized page numbers). So the question that seems to have come out of this conversation is this: What is the best tool to use when you are creating an embedded index? I thought this question was silly at first. I mean, use the tool the client or the product requires? Why use two tools when the job could be done with one? But I have read some great opinions since this thread started, and the answer isn't so easy after all. Hmm. My opinion (which is one of many) is that you should work in the application in which the final product is presented. For an HTML index, you should be using tools that create HTML documents. For Microsoft Word documents, you should be working in Word. And if you don't need to embed the index in the first, then don't! There are practical considerations that make this impossible, though. The indexer may not have access to the files until the end (as Jan Wright wrote), in which case the embedded process has to wait. Instead of twiddling one's thumbs, then, the indexer could be using a different tool to at least make some headway. It still involves more work (working with one application only to translate to another), but there is no better option given the conflicts of sharing files with others. Then there are those who think that they would rather use the tools they know -- and that can do the job better -- and "retrofit" their work to fit the client's needs. I think this is resistance to change, but this method might have its practical value, too. For example, when Cheryl Jackson talked about within with multiple, long files, generating an index with FrameMaker took so long that a time-saving compromise might be in order. Or perhaps some of the basic vocabulary issues are not yet decided, and global changes are predicted; in this case, it makes more sense to have the data available to a dedicated indexing application for editing, since global changes are notoriously time-consuming in an embedded format. And regarding cost, I would just say that I would rather earn by working fewer hours at a higher wage than by working more hours at a "standard" wage. I think if you demonstrate a willingness to work with the tools you have, and accept the learning curves, you can save time if you don't have to write the index twice -- not always, perhaps, but for me, I much prefer working in FrameMaker and Word when that's what my client wants, then trying to figure out an efficient way to start in Cindex and move later. I'll put it another way. Dick just wrote, "I discovered a primary entry with 85 subentries that I had forgotten to cross-post. I went back to Cindex, made the cross postings in a matter of seconds. I then printed the results and went back to Word to tag the 85 entries." My question is, once you knew you had to cross post them, why did you go to Cindex first? If a hard copy of the index exists, you can use it to determine your page numbers and syntax. Just type them once, in the Word document. On the other hand, Dick says that he only does one of these a year. So for the amount of time he saves or loses *per year*, I say he should stick with what he knows. Stay comfortable, get the job done, and save the learning curve for when it really starts to matter. - Seth -- Seth A. Maislin (seth@oreilly.com) O'Reilly & Associates Focus Publishing Services 90 Sherman Street 89 Grove Street Cambridge MA 02140 Watertown MA 02172-2826 (617) 499-7439 phone (617) 924-4428 (617) 661-1116 facsimile smaislin@world.std.com URL: http://www.oreilly.com/~seth Webmaster, Amer Soc of Indexers: http://www.well.com/user/asi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:22:00 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: turnover time At 01:51 PM 3/19/98 -0500, you wrote: >I'll put it another way. Dick just wrote, "I discovered a primary entry with >85 subentries that I had forgotten to cross-post. I went back to Cindex, made >the cross postings in a matter of seconds. I then printed the results and >went back to Word to tag the 85 entries." My question is, once you knew you >had to cross post them, why did you go to Cindex first? If a hard copy of >the index exists, you can use it to determine your page numbers and syntax. >Just type them once, in the Word document. Let me get this straight. You are asking me why I did a step that only took a few seconds and not questioning the one that took an hour an a half? Dick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:57:08 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Rachel Rice Subject: insurance, and OOPS, sorry In-Reply-To: Oh, well, obviously that last message was most assuredly not meant for Index-L as I don't usually sign "Love, Me" to you all, though I am fond of you. Don't know how I pressed Index-L instead of DAD, but these things happen. Oh, I just looked and Dad and Index-L are right next to each other in my address list. At least I didn't talk about private stuff. Sorry all. I'll be more careful. But since I mentioned insurance, I was planning anyway to let you all know that there is some very good insurance available for self-employed persons, with various options for deductibles and coverage. The salesman said I could pass along his number. It's not available in all states, but in quite a few, I can remember NJ, NC, MA, VT off the top of my head. He says if he's not licensed in your state, he'll be able to transfer you to someone. His name is Jim Hopkins, 802-365-4324. If you have employees, it's even better. Rachel Rachel Rice Directions Unlimited Desktop Services Indexing, editing, proofreading http://homepages.together.net/~racric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:06:46 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "J.A Binns" Subject: embedded indexes by authors The subject of embedded indexes has certainly generated a lot of discussion, and I can certainly follow all the arguments in favour of this method when being used by skilled indexers using appropriate tools for the job. However, I would like to follow up on a point I touched on in my previous message, namely embedded methods being used by authors who don't know what they are doing. I mentioned a disastrous index produced by an acquaintance using Word. This index has related terms under different headings, with absolutely no subheadings, eg: irrigation 15-18, 37-9, 42 seasonal irrigation 128 traditional irrigation 124, 133, 135 The page locators make very little sense, so for instance in the above example one would expect irrigation to be the main topic covered on pages 15-18, but in fact it is mentioned in passing on p.15 and again on p.18, but not at all on pp.16 & 17, which in fact is a chapter break. Conversely, under some headings there are long strings of page references which actually should be page ranges. I could go on and on, in fact every entry I look at seems to have something wrong with it. The point I want to make is that the author did not realise how bad the index was, and I fear he still does not realise, because I did not have the nerve to point out all his mistakes. In fact he was very pleased with himself that he had managed to produce the index so quickly and easily using the software that he had used to write the book - and he was especially pleased because he *had not had to pay an indexer to do it*! Is this the future for indexing? Should we all be worried for our livelihoods? Margaret Binns ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:45:54 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Frank Stearns Subject: Embedded Indexing tools (Was: Re: turnover time) John Sullivan has a good point: >> The thing I want to stress, though, is that in my work, embedded indexing is the ONLY reasonable way to index. I doubt that I will ever prepare an index any other way. That doesn't mean that my indexes are inferior. << Given the nature of this day-to-day reality, especially in the software/hardware documentation arena, the trick is to produce the best embedded indexes possible, as John implies. We are one of those companies that produce an embedded indexing tool, but in its design we were fully aware of the rotten "indexes" that automated tools can create, and the limitations of embedded indexing environments. (Some of the limits can be worked around, depending on the environment. Regarding sorting, for example, FrameMaker has a method to control sorting, though it can be mildly awkward depending on how many sort adjustments are needed.) Our toolset (IXgen) is specifically designed for FrameMaker. And, fully aware that it is the human mind that makes the index and not the machine, our goal was to relieve Frame users of many of the mechanical pains of embedded index creation and maintenance in FrameMaker. In this way mental energy was on the index, not seemingly endless mouse clicks in dialogs. Right near the front of the IXgen documentation we caution users in the application of the semi-automatic tools provided. (The majority of the IXgen tools are for ease of editing. Only three tools create can new entries.) We specifically did *not* include fully automatic features that would lead to yet more of the horrid machine indexes. We've lost a few sales because of this, but we feel that "the cause" of better indexing is worth it. Some of the purists may still hate us, but we hope not. We are aware of the pitfalls, have done what we can to gently educate our users, and have tried to provide a good, solid set of tools for harried FrameMaker users and professional indexers who must use FrameMaker's embedded indexing. At the same time, we've tried not contribute to the further decline of civilization. At one time we were looking into a Macrex/Cindex import/export utility for IXgen, but discovered that such a add-on would not be as simple as it sounded, and we were concerned about sufficient interest to justify the Engineering effort. If there's a big show of hands from Frame/dedicated index program users, perhaps we could revisit this. If you are a FrameMaker user and are interested in IXgen, please visit our web site or contact us directly. + --------------------------------------------------------------------- + | Frank Stearns Associates | Developers of Tools for FrameMaker(r): | | mailto:franks@fsatools.com | IXgen, FM2A, Programmable Export Kit | | 360/892-3970 fx:360/253-1498 | Now shipping IXgen 5.5 for Windows!! | + --------------------------------------------------------------------- + | http://www.pacifier.com/~franks (Email if web page access problems) | + --------------------------------------------------------------------- + ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:49:22 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: AllWrite N Subject: Re: insurance, and OOPS, sorry Nuts! I was really looking forward to getting the insurance refund you were talking about sending! Oh, well. Easy come, easy go... ;D Nancy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:01:39 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Barry Koffler Subject: Re: Turnover time In-Reply-To: <199803191018.FAA17998@ulster.net> >Incidentally, am I >the only person on the list who has never indexed a computer manual? > No, you're not! -Barry oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo barkof@ulster.net Barry Koffler mid-Hudson Valley, NY the FeatherSite at http://www.feathersite.com/ lead me not into temptation . . . I can find it myself. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:20:58 LCL Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Victoria Baker Subject: Re: turnover time In-Reply-To: <199803191830.KAA13691@pacific.net> Dick wrote: >If I were dedicated to using Word, I could probably improve with >practice, but the whole process sucks the joy out of indexing for me. This joy suckage is what I experience every time I simply read one of the descriptions about the machinations required to create and edit indexes in the word-processing programs. This reminds me of the machinations required on some of the old mainframe typesetting systems that I worked with for almost 20 years. Some systems could handle, say, complex math equations with relative ease, but others, Pentax comes to mind, required endless coding. Pentax was great for so much, but really tiresome to do equations on. Then of course there were the transition phases, in which we had a mainframe combined with a Lino VIP typesetter. What a nightmare to set math that was. Well... we know what happened to all those systems, don't we? My point is that these embedded programs need to be protested against instead of accepting their limitations. I indexed exactly one computer manual. I was only allowed one cross-reference format, and the contractor specified it would be the ^See^ reference. No ^See also^. This was because the ultimate embedded destination couldn't handle both. Or, because page ranges are so difficult to handle, page ranges disappear from indexes and I hear indexers justifying it, saying that nobody really needs page ranges anyway. Etc. So it seems to me that in adapting to the demands of not-very-informed programmers who have written these programs and who say, "sorry, that's the best we can do," indexing quality can and does suffer. If this is the format the publishers want, where is the movement to require the great information age to get real and invest some research money in these indexing modules? There is no way I'm prepared to believe that this is the best that can be done. Best, Victoria ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:47:03 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Julie Knoeller Subject: More suckage; clap if you can hear it Of course you're right, Victoria. Us whining amongst ourselves won't get anything changed. Therefore, I think I will send my rant over to Adobe. I hope some of the rest of you will too. In fact, they are just up the road, and since everyone knows someone everywhere here in Silicon Valley, maybe I can ferret out a fairly direct line of communication. Or, I could just tape it to a bowling ball and play through their lobby... (ahem, just kidding folks...I wouldn't even ADMIT that I own a bowling ball...) Julie At 01:20 PM 3/19/98 LCL, you wrote: >Dick wrote: >>If I were dedicated to using Word, I could probably improve with >>practice, but the whole process sucks the joy out of indexing for me. > >This joy suckage is what I experience every time I simply read one of the >descriptions about the machinations required to create and edit indexes in >the word-processing programs. This reminds me of the machinations required >on some of the old mainframe typesetting systems that I worked with for >almost 20 years. Some systems could handle, say, complex math equations >with relative ease, but others, Pentax comes to mind, required endless >coding. Pentax was great for so much, but really tiresome to do equations >on. Then of course there were the transition phases, in which we had a >mainframe combined with a Lino VIP typesetter. What a nightmare to set >math that was. > >Well... we know what happened to all those systems, don't we? > >My point is that these embedded programs need to be protested against >instead of accepting their limitations. I indexed exactly one computer >manual. I was only allowed one cross-reference format, and the contractor >specified it would be the ^See^ reference. No ^See also^. This was >because the ultimate embedded destination couldn't handle both. Or, >because page ranges are so difficult to handle, page ranges disappear from >indexes and I hear indexers justifying it, saying that nobody really needs >page ranges anyway. Etc. So it seems to me that in adapting to the demands >of not-very-informed programmers who have written these programs and who >say, "sorry, that's the best we can do," indexing quality can and does suffer. > >If this is the format the publishers want, where is the movement to require >the great information age to get real and invest some research money in >these indexing modules? There is no way I'm prepared to believe that this >is the best that can be done. > >Best, >Victoria > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:47:49 -0800 Reply-To: ljm2001@mindspring.com Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: LJM Subject: Embedded Indexing Tools As a potential indexer, I'm curious as to how most indexers have acquired the various embedded indexing tools such as PageMaker, FrameMaker,and QuarkXPress. I just checked the prices for these software packages, and they range from $550 (approx.) to $1500. Obviously not something one would buy casually (I've excluded Word). Do you buy the software for the first time when a job comes up that needs it? Do publishers provide it? Or is it considered an investment for the future? And if you wanted to learn embedded indexing, which software would you buy? Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:13:58 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Embedded Indexing Tools At 01:47 PM 3/19/98 -0800, you wrote: >As a potential indexer, I'm curious as to how most indexers have >acquired the various embedded indexing tools such as PageMaker, >FrameMaker,and QuarkXPress. I just checked the prices for these software >packages, and they range from $550 (approx.) to $1500. Obviously >not something one would buy casually (I've excluded Word). Do you >buy the software for the first time when a job comes up that needs >it? Do publishers provide it? Or is it considered an investment >for the future? And if you wanted to learn embedded indexing, >which software would you buy? I bought PageMaker with an academic discount (my wife is a teacher) in anticipation of doing a large project that required it. The project never materialized and it gathers dust on a shelf. It is a Catch-22 situation. You can spend a fortune on software and invest loads of effort learning it in the hope you'll get a chance to recoup your investment or you can wait for an opportunity then not have the time to buy and learn the software. The worst case scenario is that you buy Cindex (or Macrex), Word, PageMaker, FrameMaker, QuarkExpress, etc costing you hundreds if not thousands of dollars. You then spend exorbitant amounts of time and effort becoming proficient in all packages, then sit and wait for a chance to use them. Publishers don't seem to appreciate this. I have a client for whom I've done the occasional Word index. I have explained to them that I can't do justice to one or two projects a year and if they could give me a steadier flow of work I could afford to invest in some programming effort to expedite the Word tagging. They have the work but seem to want to spread it out., so I have reluctantly declined their most recent request. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:02:30 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sanindex Subject: Re: Embedded Indexing Tools For those of you interested in investigating embedded indexing, and who would find it possible to be in Chicago on March 28, there will be a workshop discussing embedded indexing given by Seth Maislin, ASI webmaster. There are a few spots still open. Contact Sandi Schroeder (sanindex@aol.com) if you would like more information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:04:26 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Anne Day Subject: Re: 21st Century indexes I agree with Fred Leise, who points out the importance of indexes for searching archived material on the Internet. Search engines which locate files containing a particular word or phrase rarely help the searcher find relevant information quickly. I work for a monthly trade publication for the jewelry industry (a new magazine with 3 issues distributed so far), and we are beginning to place the entire editorial content of each issue online, article by article, for later searching by industry members who visit our website. We all agreed that an editorial index with links to the articles was needed to complement the full-text search option (where a person types in a word to obtain a list of all articles containing that word). Since we are a monthly publication, we need an editorial index anyway. All that the online dimension requires is that we record not only the issue month and page number information for each article, but also the name of the html document on our website. We're creating a database from which we can generate either a printed editorial index (for the print publication), or an electronic file with links (from which we can create an html file, or online index). We're still in the early/middle phase of this project, but it seems to be working well so far. For us, one index which can be formatted for use either in print or online is crucial to avoid the time-consuming process of setting up two entirely separate indexes. One other point: A big problem with online searching is that browing is difficult. There's no electronic equivalent to "flipping through a magzine." People have to look to find the information. This makes an index for online material even MORE important, perhaps, than an index for the same material in print form. -------------------------------------------- Anne Brennan Day Editorial Production Manager ph: (215) 731-2227 Professional Jeweler magazine fax: (215) 545-9629 aday@bondcomm.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:11:28 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Anne Day Subject: Sorry, Sharon! My apologies to Sharon Wright, who wrote the wonderful explanation of why online material needs to be indexed. While writing my response, I glanced too far down the page and refered incorrectly to Fred Leise, who submitted the original question. -------------------------------------------- Anne Brennan Day Editorial Production Manager ph: (215) 731-2227 Professional Jeweler magazine fax: (215) 545-9629 aday@bondcomm.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:24:05 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sharon Wright Subject: Sorry, Sharon! -Reply No offense taken! :-) Thanks for the compliment! -- Sharon W. >>> Anne Day 03/20/98 09:11am >>> My apologies to Sharon Wright, who wrote the wonderful explanation of why online material needs to be indexed. While writing my response, I glanced too far down the page and refered incorrectly to Fred Leise, who submitted the original question. -------------------------------------------- Anne Brennan Day Editorial Production Manager ph: (215) 731-2227 Professional Jeweler magazine fax: (215) 545-9629 aday@bondcomm.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:24:12 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Claire LeBlanc Subject: Job Op--O'Reilly & Associates Associate Indexer Wanted O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., a computer book publisher in Cambridge, MA, seeks an associate indexer. This is a part-time, short-term contract position. *Must work on-site in our office.* The Associate Indexer will create embedded-tag indexes in Framemaker and possibly in other formats. Responsibilities include marking up hard copy, inserting index tags in files, generating indexes from completed files, and editing and revising indexes. The Associate Indexer will learn and implement house indexing standards. This is an ideal position for a beginning indexer seeking more experience, or for a veteran indexer who wishes to establish a long-term working relationship with a publisher and develop embedded indexing skills. Requirements: Some experience/training in indexing. Strong communications and conceptual skills. Close attention to detail. Must be comfortable with technical material. Framemaker and/or Unix experience desirable, but not essential. Bachelor's degree. If interested, please send a cover letter, resume, and short indexing sample (4-15 pgs) to: Claire Cloutier LeBlanc O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. 90 Sherman Street Cambridge, MA 02140 617-354-5800 (phone) 617-661-1116 (fax) cleblanc@oreilly.com Claire Cloutier LeBlanc Production Coordinator 617-499-7473 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:42:47 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803181505.HAA09521@mail-gw6.pacbell.net> At 10:15 AM 3/18/98 -0500, Erika wrote: > I'm indexing a computer book that has a lot of information > about the Windows 95 accessibility options for disabled > users. What's the preferred way to index these features? > I'm using "accessibility options" as a main entry, but I'd > also like to post these features under something like > "physically challenged users" or "visually impaired users". > Do you think that's enough? Should I create a See reference > for "disabled users, see accessibility options"? Or will > that get me in trouble? Hi Erika, I don't think that any See reference that will get users to the text they need will get you into "trouble" unless it's really off-the-wall, which none of your suggestions are at all. ;-D Recently I had to make use of Win95's accessibility options myself when diabetic fluctuations in my vision trashed it to the point where I had to greatly enlarge all of the screen elements temporarily to the point where I could see them. (Being that it didn't enlarge my page proofs, it made indexing extremely ...ahem... interesting.) Anyway, if I had wanted to look up accessibility options in the Win95 brochure (can't dignify it by calling it a "manual") that came with my computer, I would have first looked under "visually impaired" or "disabled users" (using a magnifying glass, of course). I personally wouldn't have thought to look under "physically challenged", however it wouldn't hurt to have a See reference from such an entry unless space is really tight. Of course, as we as a society struggle to find the most sensitive term for one or another condition, group, etc., the number of See references in our indexes expands proportionately. ;-D > I don't want to offend anyone, but at the same time > I don't want someone to look up "disabled users" or > "handicapped users" and think there's no relevant > information in the book. I agree with all you've said here. As much as some folks don't like the term "handicapped users", I don't see it as any better or worse than "disabled users". After all, does anyone really take issue with signs pointing drivers to "Handicapped Parking?" Readers are likely to look under either term, IMHO. I'd find it more offensive to not find the term I was looking for in an index than to see a term in an index that happens to be a bit less au courant than another. I don't mean this at all as condoning insensitivity in any way or using offensive terms such as slurs, but I feel that as indexers we must also be equally sensitive to the needs of readers to rapidly access information. So, I agree with how you're handling it! Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:18:01 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Turnover time In-Reply-To: <199803200520.XAA11896@mixcom.mixcom.com> >I found that, on the average, I was spending one minute per tagged entry. >*ONE MINUTE PER ENTRY* contrast that to CIndex, where time is measured in >split seconds. Case in point. I had created the Cindex index and was >tagging the Word file. I discovered a primary entry with 85 subentries >that I had forgotten to cross-post. I went back to Cindex, made the cross >postings in a matter of seconds. I then printed the results and went back >to Word to tag the 85 entries. It took me an hour and a half! Thanks, Dick. That's very graphic. Next time a client wants an embedded index, do you mind if I quote you, when negotiating my fee? One other thing I'm curious about: Since most publishing is done in some page layout program, such as PageMaker or Quark, I take it you are indexing *before* any page layout happens. (Presumably, if a designer already has the doc. and is working with the layout, that person can't import your Word doc. without losing all the work that's been done on the layout.) Have you ever considering doing the embedding--when it can't be avoided--in, say, PageMaker rather than Word? PageMaker's indexing function is at least better than Word's. Which brings us right back to the question of how much software an indexer can be expected to buy to meet client needs. PageMaker ain't cheap. But, like anything else, if I had enough clients wanting me to index that way, I suppose it would pay for itself in the long run. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:36:07 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: embedded indexes by authors In-Reply-To: <199803200520.XAA11896@mixcom.mixcom.com> >The point I want to make is that the author did not realise how bad the >index was, and I fear he still does not realise, because I did not have the >nerve to point out all his mistakes. In fact he was very pleased with >himself that he had managed to produce the index so quickly and easily >using the software that he had used to write the book - and he was >especially pleased because he *had not had to pay an indexer to do it*! > >Is this the future for indexing? Should we all be worried for our livelihoods? All this shows, I think, is that the foolish authors (and I have to think they're in the minority) can be equally foolish regardless of the tools they use. You could give this author Cindex, and he would still shoot himself in the foot with it. I'm not worried about my livelihood. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:14:05 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Seth A. Maislin" Subject: Buying embedded indexing programs (WAS: turnover time) In-Reply-To: Carol Roberts "Re: Turnover time" (Mar 20, 9:18am) I'm branching this to another thread, because I think it's important to get its own subject line. :-) Carol (and others before her, in other words) writes: > Which brings us right back to the question of how much > software an indexer can be expected to buy to meet client needs. PageMaker > ain't cheap. But, like anything else, if I had enough clients wanting me to > index that way, I suppose it would pay for itself in the long run. I think the decision to purchase software -- regardless of type -- is up to the indexer, based on client needs. I managed without any dedicated index software for a couple years (remember, I used Excel) because most of the indexes I wrote could be written by me with a less-than-optimal tool without sacrificing quality. On the other hand, the indexes that I write for my employer use their tools and their software on their machines -- so I didn't have to pay for it. Because embedded indexing is "the wave of the future" (that's the general consensus, I think), that doesn't mean we should all go out and buy every program with which you can embed index data. I have yet to write a FrameMaker index for someone other than my employee. I already owned Word for my own purposes. And I don't work for clients who use PageMaker or Quark -- and I never have. So I've never bought any of these things. But I think that there will come a time when I will bite the bullet and buy FrameMaker. I know how to use it, I market myself as a user of Frame, and I even instruct people how to use Frame, both professionally as and as a part of my job. (For example, see http://www.oreilly.com/~seth/tutor.html#frame .) My suggestion is to wait for the client to say, "This is what I want," and for you to realize that you need to buy something to provide it. Then buy it. However, if you think it's possible that this will happen soon, I would recommend learning the tools the now, and figuring out how quickly you *can* buy the software. Even buying Cindex can take a few days, and that's fast in the marketplace. Also, Cindex is a lot easier to install than FrameMaker because it's such a small program compared to Frame. If you are going to buy Frame, do you even have an appropriate computer and/or operating system? And so on. So research the product now, consider learning how to use it soon, and buy it when it will get you a contract. - Seth -- Seth A. Maislin (seth@oreilly.com) O'Reilly & Associates Focus Publishing Services 90 Sherman Street 89 Grove Street Cambridge MA 02140 Watertown MA 02172-2826 (617) 499-7439 phone (617) 924-4428 (617) 661-1116 facsimile smaislin@world.std.com URL: http://www.oreilly.com/~seth Webmaster, Amer Soc of Indexers: http://www.well.com/user/asi ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:24:52 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Katrina Lemke Subject: Re: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803201517.KAA02024@camel10.mindspring.com> I agree with Lynn's post below. One reason I think Handicapped is valid is the use of it in handicapped parking and the fact that Windows95 uses the familiar wheelchair symbol as the icon for the accessibility options in the control panel. I certainly did not mean to suggest that insensitivity is acceptable as was intimated in a couple of responses to the original post. I do, however have experience from the disabled side of the issue. In the ten years since I've been visually impaired I have experienced very little blatant mean-spirited insensitivity (and these are easy to blow off). What I find much more isolating is people's fear of offending me often to the point of not approaching me or literally jumping out of the way. I prefer open curiosity and declared ignorance, even blatant insensitivity to the nervous and evasive struggle of fear of saying the wrong thing. (Even totally blind people say, "see you later".) I also find that most disabled people welcome questions and the opportunity to talk about their reality. Thanks for listening, Katrina Lemke Fisheye Indexing Seattle WA At 08:42 PM 3/19/98 -0800, you wrote: >At 10:15 AM 3/18/98 -0500, Erika wrote: >> I'm indexing a computer book that has a lot of information >> about the Windows 95 accessibility options for disabled >> users. What's the preferred way to index these features? >> I'm using "accessibility options" as a main entry, but I'd >> also like to post these features under something like >> "physically challenged users" or "visually impaired users". >> Do you think that's enough? Should I create a See reference >> for "disabled users, see accessibility options"? Or will >> that get me in trouble? > >Hi Erika, > >I don't think that any See reference that will get users to the text they >need will get you into "trouble" unless it's really off-the-wall, which >none of your suggestions are at all. ;-D Recently I had to make use of >Win95's accessibility options myself when diabetic fluctuations in my >vision trashed it to the point where I had to greatly enlarge all of the >screen elements temporarily to the point where I could see them. (Being >that it didn't enlarge my page proofs, it made indexing extremely >...ahem... interesting.) Anyway, if I had wanted to look up accessibility >options in the Win95 brochure (can't dignify it by calling it a "manual") >that came with my computer, I would have first looked under "visually >impaired" or "disabled users" (using a magnifying glass, of course). I >personally wouldn't have thought to look under "physically challenged", >however it wouldn't hurt to have a See reference from such an entry unless >space is really tight. Of course, as we as a society struggle to find the >most sensitive term for one or another condition, group, etc., the number >of See references in our indexes expands proportionately. ;-D > >> I don't want to offend anyone, but at the same time >> I don't want someone to look up "disabled users" or >> "handicapped users" and think there's no relevant >> information in the book. > >I agree with all you've said here. As much as some folks don't like the >term "handicapped users", I don't see it as any better or worse than >"disabled users". After all, does anyone really take issue with signs >pointing drivers to "Handicapped Parking?" Readers are likely to look under >either term, IMHO. I'd find it more offensive to not find the term I was >looking for in an index than to see a term in an index that happens to be a >bit less au courant than another. I don't mean this at all as condoning >insensitivity in any way or using offensive terms such as slurs, but I feel >that as indexers we must also be equally sensitive to the needs of readers >to rapidly access information. So, I agree with how you're handling it! > >Lynn > > > >*********************************** >Lynn Moncrief >(techndex@pacbell.net) >TECHindex & Docs >Technical and Scientific Indexing >*********************************** > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:56:45 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ann Norcross Subject: Re: Buying embedded indexing programs (WAS: turnover time) Seth A. Maislin wrote: > > I'm branching this to another thread, because I think it's important to > get its own subject line. :-) > > Carol (and others before her, in other words) writes: > > Which brings us right back to the question of how much > > software an indexer can be expected to buy to meet client needs. PageMaker > > ain't cheap. But, like anything else, if I had enough clients wanting me to > > index that way, I suppose it would pay for itself in the long run. Here are a few ideas for getting software at a less expensive price. Note: I am a staunch believer in NOT copying software, NOT buying pirated versions (WAREZ), and NOT sharing single-license software among multiple users. Those actions are, to me, stealing. Some of the ideas in this note may not fit in your moral scheme--I'm not sure all of them fit in mine. Use what you like, leave the rest. 1. If you belong to a professional society like STC, there are often product discounts negotiated with software manufacturers. Check with your society chair, or maybe there is an education or training committee--or something similar--that knows the details. Does ASI have any such discounts? 2. Some large employers get product discounts. I bought Word--at a substantial discount--when I was an IBM employee. The offer was for personal use; it was not a product I required for my job. Neither IBM nor Microsoft cared what I would be using Word for. If you don't work for such a company, do you have any friends who work for big companies and would buy a discounted product for you? (Your friend would need to make sure that "gift" purchases are allowed.) By the way, similar discounts may be available for hardware. 3. Most products offer academic discounts--are you a teacher or a student? If not, do you know any teachers or students who would buy it for you? 4. Sometimes you can buy a down-level version of a product very cheaply, maybe even used. After you install it, you are eligible for the upgrade price on the new version--usually a substantial savings. Just make sure that if you buy an old version from someone that s/he really does uninstall it from the original system--otherwise you're violating the original owner's license agreement (read "stealing"). Ann Norcross (feeling a little paranoid and not wanting to be accused of inciting to larceny!) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:41:03 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Nancy A. Guenther" Subject: Re: Buying embedded indexing programs (WAS: turnover time) >Here are a few ideas for getting software at a less expensive price. >Note: I am a staunch believer in NOT copying software, NOT buying >pirated versions (WAREZ), and NOT sharing single-license software >among multiple users. Those actions are, to me, stealing. Some of >the ideas in this note may not fit in your moral scheme--I'm not sure >all of them fit in mine. Use what you like, leave the rest. To add to the previous list -- be alert to competitive upgrades & read the fine print. Sometimes competitive software is very broadly defined. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:08:51 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Craig Brown Subject: Re: Buying embedded indexing programs By sheer coincidence I just got off the phone with a local (St. Louis) graphic designer who uses Quark and my buying the program was a topic of discussion. She suggested taking a course in Quark at the local community college which not only gives you the academic discount but also gives you a head start in learning the software. The course is relatively inexpensive and the discount she described sounded to be in the range of 50 percent. Craig Brown ========================================== The Last Word lastword@i1.net Indexing (314)352-9094 www.i1.net/~lastword ========================================== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:37:32 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Turnover time At 09:18 AM 3/20/98 -0600, you wrote: > >Thanks, Dick. That's very graphic. Next time a client wants an embedded >index, do you mind if I quote you, when negotiating my fee? Sure, for whatever it's worth. > >One other thing I'm curious about: Since most publishing is done in some >page layout program, such as PageMaker or Quark, I take it you are indexing >*before* any page layout happens. Not on the only two Word projects I've been involved with. >(Presumably, if a designer already has >the doc. and is working with the layout, that person can't import your Word >doc. without losing all the work that's been done on the layout.) Have you >ever considering doing the embedding--when it can't be avoided--in, say, >PageMaker rather than Word? PageMaker's indexing function is at least >better than Word's. Not appreciably. Perhaps data entry could be faster. I know PageMaker keeps a list of entries created to date and lets you pick an entry from the list instead of typing it. I don't recall how it handles page ranges. However, the editing features are still as cumbersome as Word: compile the index, find the errors, track down the tags, change the tags, recompile the index, etc. >Which brings us right back to the question of how much >software an indexer can be expected to buy to meet client needs. PageMaker >ain't cheap. But, like anything else, if I had enough clients wanting me to >index that way, I suppose it would pay for itself in the long run. That's the key: having enough work to make it worth spending the money and effort to become proficient with a package. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:50:45 LCL Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Victoria Baker Subject: Re: politically aware indexing In-Reply-To: <199803182129.NAA02017@pacific.net> I'm going to give this one more try and then I'll stop: Originally, the term "politically correct" was used as a critique by people in the left about overzealous policing by the left of private aspects of people's lives such as sexual behavior. Its original use was to protect minority groups within the left. The meaning of the term has been twisted into a pejorative code to silence concern for minority groups in general. I don't think the term "politically correct" is useful, because it is not accurate. What we are discussing is sensitivity to labels, which requires political awareness. Starting from a place of thinking of it as "PC" handicaps our ability to think through the subject in terms of indexing. When sensitivity starts off being deemed automatically overzealous, there is a lot more baggage to get through on a subject that, except for the specific terms used, is standard in the indexer's repertoire. We easily discuss the best terms to use for other issues, but we attach much negative baggage to figuring out the best terms to use for complex social issues. Why the big difference? In large part it is the conditioning that the pejorative use of PC has created. IMO, thinking of it as "political awareness" is a much more positive and productive place to begin. --Victoria ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:59:08 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: LLF EdServ Subject: book titles in indexes Hey all, I'm poking my head back in to ask a quick question. I'm currently indexing a book in which recipes are scattered throughout. Sometimes the source of the recipe is mention, for example, This great fruit salad was adapted from Eating Healthy Cookbook. recipe follows. In the previous edition, the titles were included in the index. I can see no reason to include them since the books themselves are not discussed. What do you think? The book itself has nothing to do with cookbooks, it's an encyclopedia of fruits, vegetables, and herbs. Thanks, Leslie Frank Words Indexing and Editing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:01:46 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sonsie Subject: Re: book titles in indexes No, I wouldn't include the names of the books from which the recipes were taken...unless your editor says he/she WANTS the cites in the index. But instinctively I wouldn't do it otherwise. =Sonsie= ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:11:36 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lindsay Gower Subject: Re: book titles in indexes In-Reply-To: <199803202002.MAA23818@firewall.persistence.com> Speaking from the perspective of a reader, a cook and an indexer: I'd *love* to see a cookbook's index list other books mentioned. If I see a mention in the text, and think "I'll look for that book at the library or bookstore," later I won't remember the title or where I saw the mention. Turn to index, look up "Cookbooks," find the entry, voila! I can go book shopping. But I would only index them under "Cookbooks" not under their own titles. -- LG At 02:59 PM 3/20/98 EST, you wrote: >Hey all, >I'm poking my head back in to ask a quick question. I'm currently indexing a >book in which recipes are scattered throughout. Sometimes the source of the >recipe is mention, for example, >This great fruit salad was adapted from Eating Healthy Cookbook. >recipe follows. >In the previous edition, the titles were included in the index. I can see no >reason to include them since the books themselves are not discussed. What do >you think? >The book itself has nothing to do with cookbooks, it's an encyclopedia of >fruits, vegetables, and herbs. >Thanks, >Leslie >Frank Words Indexing and Editing > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lindsay Gower lindsay@persistence.com -or- Lindsay.Gower@persistence.com Technical Writer Persistence Software, Inc. 1720 So. Amphlett Blvd #300 San Mateo CA (650) 372-3606 http://www.persistence.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:22:58 -0800 Reply-To: Elinor Lindheimer Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: other cookbook titles in indexes In the context Leslie mentioned, I would not index the names of the cookbooks from which recipes have been adapted. Elinor Lindheimer elinorl@mcn.org >I'm currently indexing a book in which recipes are scattered >throughout. Sometimes the source of the recipe is mentioned, for >example, This great fruit salad was adapted from Eating Healthy >Cookbook. >recipe follows. >In the previous edition, the titles were included in the index. I can see >no reason to include them since the books themselves are not discussed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:15:36 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Kennedy Subject: Re: politically correct indexing In-Reply-To: <199803201721.LAA19952@mail.minn.net> At 09:24 AM 3/20/98 -0800, you wrote: >One reason I think Handicapped is valid is >the use of it in handicapped parking and the fact that Windows95 uses the >familiar wheelchair symbol as the icon for the accessibility options in the >control panel. Anyone may use any term. However, those who choose to use "handicapped" should do so with the awareness that many people with disabilities object to it. Best wishes, Carol Kennedy colfaxgp@minn.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:41:27 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman Subject: Re: book titles in indexes Leslie, I agree with Elinor. I wouldn't index those titles. My oversimplified guide to whether or not to put something in the index ......... my rule of thumb ....... is quite simple. Almost so simple it's silly. But it works in helping to decide. If I were looking in the index, and I found that index reference and turned to that page, would I feel I learned something from it about the topic. Is there a fact there, a piece of information? Or would I be irritated at having gone to the page and found "only that"? Based on that kind of self-questioning, I would not index those titles. Hope this helps. Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:48:00 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: LLF EdServ Subject: Re: book titles in indexes--thanks In a message dated 98-03-20 17:44:12 EST, you write: << ........ my rule of thumb ....... is quite simple. Almost so simple it's silly. But it works in helping to decide. If I were looking in the index, and I found that index reference and turned to that page, would I feel I learned something from it about the topic. Is there a fact there, a piece of information? Or would I be irritated at having gone to the page and found "only that"? >> This is also pretty much my rule of thumb, which is why I balked at indexing them in the first place. But, I've been questioning my decisions a lot lately, so why not here and now also. Thanks to all of you who answered. Leslie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:11:37 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: Re[2]: Turnover time In-Reply-To: <199803191541.HAA13138@mail-gw6.pacbell.net> At 10:31 AM 3/19/98 -0500, Cheryl wrote: > > As for the Mulvany quote, I will concede that for the most part > embedded indexing software does not sort entries very well. PageMaker > has a workable sort feature, but Word and Quark do not (at least Quark > 3.3 doesn't; I haven't seen Quark 4.0 yet). Hi Cheryl, FrameMaker is probably the best at this because you can force the sort order of main and subentries. > In my previous response, I meant to also include a comment about > "indexing blind" when using embedded indexing software. Granted, I > can't just look at the screen and immediately see what my finished > index will look like, but I can do mini-compiles in Word, or use the > Show Index feature in PageMaker, to see how my index looks so far. > (Can't do that with Quark 3.3. I hope that was changed in Quark 4.0.) > I also keep extensive notes for each title so that I know what terms I > have been using, how I've been organizing main topics, and what see > references I've used. Those notes make my codes much more consistent > and my final edits much easier and faster. Some form of note-keeping and referencing is IMHO essential for producing good indexes by directly embedding. I agree with you wholeheartedly here! I'd do something similar when creating indexes directly by embedding by generating many interim indexes as I worked. The problem I had was that, when the book was very technical and the index very large, it took forever to look through my interim printouts of the index to not only find how I was indexing a particular concept, but also double-postings for it, etc. At times, I even generated page-order sorts for particular chapters (which you can do in FrameMaker) to get a "snapshot" of how I handled a particular concept in all its permutations because the entries for a particular page would be grouped together. (OTOH, Macrex's group mode would give me the same info in just a few seconds and I could keep on steppin'.) Of course, generating chapter indexes, chapter page-order sorts, and interim iterations of the index to the entire book rapidly populated my hard disk. (Plus, FrameMaker dutifully makes backups of all of these!!) ;-D And I did this very often, not only to avoid "scattering" but to prevent tons of later edits of things that wouldn't merge due to slight differences. I truly have to hand it to you, though, for being able to do this on an ongoing basis. And I sincerely mean that!!! This so drove me up the wall that it was one major reason I went to creating indexes first in dedicated indexing software before embedding. Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:15:31 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: turnover time In-Reply-To: <199803191814.KAA04731@mail-gw.pacbell.net> At 12:01 PM 3/19/98 -0600, Carol wrote (quoting someone else here): >>I'm curious about Dick Evans' comment that the time required to do an >>embedded Word index is "more than double" that of preparing a conventional >>index. > >I'm curious, too. Dick, is that because you do the whole thing using the >word-proc. indexing feature, from start to finish? That is, I've often >thought one could make embedded indexing bearable/feasible by doing the >index in Cindex (or whatever real indexing software you have) first and >then simply using that index as a guide to placing the tags (i.e., >embedding). (Julie, that's what you're talking about, right? I love your >phrase "time suckage.") That way, you get all the advantages that >stand-alone indexing software has to offer (especially speed and ease of >seeing the index's structure) while still providing what the client wants. > >Does anyone out there do it this way? If so, could you let us all know how >much extra time it takes over just creating a stand-alone index? Hi Carol, I'm one who creates indexes first in Macrex, then embeds in FrameMaker from a page-order sort. However, it doesn't have to double the amount of time for the entire project. In fact, last week I delivered a 3600-entry index that I worked on for six weeks, then embedded all of it in two days. (OK, so two of those weeks I was in the hospital and another spent recuperating. ;-D) The reason I can embed so rapidly is that I first "massage" the page-order sort in Word to get rid of all character strings (like forcing the sort-order, character tags, etc.) that I do not want to appear in the final index. Plus I've developed some pretty fast techniques for inserting non-printing strings into the page-order entries that delimit italics, etc. Most of this can be very rapidly done using global searches/replaces. I also insert strings to force the sort order where necessary, using a lot of copying/pasting, though this requires scanning the page-order sort (searching on Macrex's tildas easily finds those that aren't leading prepositions/conjunctions, which I keep to a rare minimum). I then embed the entries by cutting (not copying) them from the page-order sort, then pasting them directly into FrameMaker's index marker box. (Cutting the entries helps me keep my place in the sort as I go along.) I do all of the cutting/pasting, widowing between apps by using keyboard commands which are far faster than using the mouse. The beauty of this technique, IMHO, is that you don't introduce typing errors as you could if you retyped the entries. (Ooops, I forgot to say that I first edit the index to perfection in Macrex before generating the page-order sort.) This answers one of Seth's objections about introducing typos by retyping entries. FrameMaker requires nonprinting "building blocks" for establishing page ranges, turning off locators for cross-references, etc. My husband and I have automated the insertion of these as well. On one computer we have a Gateway programmable keyboard, so it was a matter of programming these "building block" strings into the keyboard where they could be inserted simply by pressing Ctrl and a number key. On the computer without the programmable keyboard, we run a shareware program (Keyboard Express) that allows you to create keyboard macros that will work with any Windows program. By automating the entry of building blocks, the final index doesn't contain errors for screwed up page ranges, etc, due to misspelled building block strings. (The only types of errors I have to clean up are those caused by occasionally entering one end of a range without the other.) >Uh oh, >reading the digest further, I see that Seth hates the idea. ;-) You make >some valid points, Seth, but why couldn't you simply familiarize yourself >with the embedding function (without actually using it initially), so as to >*avoid* doing things in Cindex or Macrex that aren't preserved when you get >to the embedding? The pre-embedding "massage" of the page-order sort takes care of this for me. That way I can do whatever I need to do in Macrex without worrying about what will happen in FrameMaker as the "massage" keeps it all under my control. ;-D For example, my last index had entries containing square brackets, a reserved character in FrameMaker. So, in the "massage", I simply searched on all of them and inserted backslashes before them so that they would be treated as printable characters in FrameMaker. You do need to be thoroughly familiar with the embedding function of your software (and the little "gotchas" hiding in your index) to do this well. >This situation seems analogous to the relationship >between MS Word and PageMaker. When I was an in-house editor, we editors >worked on the text in Word, cuz that was the right tool for the job. Then >we gave the edited ms. to the designer, who exported it to PageMaker, for >layout. Now, even though you can edit text in PageMaker, it was far too >slow and clunky to be feasible to do it that way. And not because *I* was >slow and clunky--I knew my way around PageMaker pretty well. This is analogous to a really weird situation I had on my last index. I had a series of subentries under "UCR (Uniform Crime Report)" and other main headings for: Return A, Return B1, Return B2, Returns D and E, and Return I. For some unknown reason, Macrex insisted on sorting Return I before Return A!!!! (I even tried turning off Roman numerals, which didn't occur in this index, and resorting/remerging the index to no avail. Not even putting a character tag after the letter "I" worked.) A similar problem occured with "vi editor" which insisted on sorting in subentry lists before EMACS editor. After a lot of messing around, I realized that FrameMaker would sort both of these problem children correctly, which it did, and I didn't bother trying to force them to sort properly in Macrex. Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:16:58 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: embedded indexes by authors In-Reply-To: <199803192019.MAA13344@mail-gw.pacbell.net> At 08:06 PM 3/19/98 +0000, Margaret wrote: >The subject of embedded indexes has certainly generated a lot of >discussion, and I can certainly follow all the arguments in favour of this >method when being used by skilled indexers using appropriate tools for the >job. However, I would like to follow up on a point I touched on in my >previous message, namely embedded methods being used by authors who don't >know what they are doing. > >I mentioned a disastrous index produced by an acquaintance using Word. This >index has related terms under different headings, with absolutely no >subheadings, eg: > irrigation 15-18, 37-9, 42 > seasonal irrigation 128 > traditional irrigation 124, 133, 135 >The page locators make very little sense, so for instance in the above >example one would expect irrigation to be the main topic covered on pages >15-18, but in fact it is mentioned in passing on p.15 and again on p.18, >but not at all on pp.16 & 17, which in fact is a chapter break. Conversely, >under some headings there are long strings of page references which >actually should be page ranges. I could go on and on, in fact every entry I >look at seems to have something wrong with it. Hi Margaret, Unfortunately, this problem with embedded indexes isn't limited to authors. I have a client who uses several professional indexers for FrameMaker indexes. He complained to me that their indexes don't contain page ranges or cross references. (They aren't *that* hard to create!) He also cited improper placement of markers and putting multiple entries in the same marker, which makes it hard to edit the index. Of course, lack of page-ranging and improper marker placement lead to the problems you identified in that author's index. This client, btw, works for a technical documentation firm and does a lot of indexing himself, farming his overload out to other indexers, including me. We could only attribute these problems to sheer laziness (after all, they could read the manual which tells you how to create page ranges and cross references). As for improperly placed markers and cramming markers with many entries, I suspect that some folks embed without a strong awareness of the impact of what they're doing. Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:20:02 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: Embedded Indexing Tools In-Reply-To: <199803192150.NAA13771@mail-gw.pacbell.net> At 01:47 PM 3/19/98 -0800, Laura wrote: >As a potential indexer, I'm curious as to how most indexers have >acquired the various embedded indexing tools such as PageMaker, >FrameMaker,and QuarkXPress. I just checked the prices for these software >packages, and they range from $550 (approx.) to $1500. Obviously >not something one would buy casually (I've excluded Word). Do you >buy the software for the first time when a job comes up that needs >it? Do publishers provide it? Or is it considered an investment >for the future? And if you wanted to learn embedded indexing, >which software would you buy? Laura, I bought FrameMaker when a very good client (for whom I used to embed in Word) promised me about $6,000 worth of work in it. At the time, I had another client who I felt sure I could encourage to move from embedding in Word to embedding in FrameMaker (which I successfully did). As it turned out, the client delivered even more work than promised, which also covered my spending almost $900 for an additional 16Meg of RAM. (Yes, RAM for Gateway computers was reaaaaallllly expensive back then. I just bought 64Meg of RAM for the Quantex for only $140! Yeahhhhh, I don't fear compiling a FrameMaker index of any size now with over 80Megs now... hehehe ;-D) I can't tell you how worthwhile my investment in FrameMaker has been over the years. If you buy any of these heavyweights, CDW is a great mailorder software company with good prices, reliability, and speedy delivery. I use them for all of my major software purchases and upgrades. Another way I acquired additional versions of FrameMaker is that one client required indexes in rather obscure versions of FrameMaker and I use these versions under a site license. This means that I now have versions 4, 5, 5+SGML, and FrameBuilder (an 5+SGML predecessor). (Yes, a lot of my hard drive is consumed by various FrameMaker versions. Whenever I upgrade, I keep the old version on disk to guarantee full backward compatibility if a client uses an older version. ;-D) One possible way of acquiring FM, PM, etc. more cheaply is having a software company client buy them for you (and you deduct it from your invoice). Software companies give big discounts to other software companies as I learned too late from a client who told me that they would have done this for me had I asked. Oh well. I strongly recommend that you only buy one of these software packages when you have a client or several who can promise you enough work to cover the investment. The downside of this is having to learn the software while under a deadline crunch, but it beats spending megabucks without an adequate return. Also be forewarned that if your machine only has 8 Meg of RAM, you will have to buy more. I found this out in the midst of my first FM index when my hard disk thrashed mercilessly and tediously while trying to compile the index using virtual (hard disk swap file) memory. As for buying multiple software packages, I toyed with the idea of buying PageMaker when I received a few inquiries about indexing in it, but none of them were potentially profitable enough to make me run out and buy it. However, that does not at all mean that there isn't a good PM market out there. I just would have had to go looking for it in addition to doing regular marketing. I simply didn't have a strong enough sense of getting an adequate return on my investment if I bought PM. Some indexers use it quite a bit, having found the market. I do recommend that if you buy any of these programs, learn it well, and make sure that word gets around that you're skilled in it so you'll get referrals. (For example, I've referred PageMaker queries to an indexer who I know is experienced in it.) Happy embedding, Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 06:42:27 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Christine Shuttleworth Subject: Dr Spock's index Rather belatedly, I can't resist quoting to you (with the author's permis= sion) the article in The Indexer Vol. 6, No. 4, 1969, by Hazel Bell: "An = Author's Index". "I read recently of the all-time best-selling baby expert, Dr. = Benjamin Spock, as proof of his understanding of and devotion = to the mothers of our time, that he insisted on preparing the = index to his book, Baby and child care, himself, rather than = let a professional indexer do it, because 'an indexer would not = understand the headings under which a mother was likely to look'. This puzzled me, as, though having then no experience of indexing = or knowledge of it, I had two babies, and had never been able to = find the information I wanted in Spock, until after several = consultations of the index and tracing various passages through = the text. Now, as both indexer and mother, I am equally perplexed. = When my new baby had strange patches on its face, I was baffled to = find no reference under 'face' or 'complexion', nor a subheading = 'face' under 'skin'. At last I looked under 'rash'; but this was = prejudging the diagnosis! When I thought the child had swallowed = a bead which might be lodged in its throat, it was astonishing to = find nothing under 'swallowed objects' - especially as there is = an entry under 'O' for 'objects in nose and ears', but no 'objects, = swallowed'. 'Throat' only yielded 'throat infections'. The child = wasn't choking, but at last I assumed Dr. Spock might assume a = mother to think he was, and looked there; the 'choking' entry led = to a paragraph subheaded, 'swallowed objects and choking'. I wonder = what the secret aspect of motherhood is, that an indexer wouldn't = appreciate, which should prevent her looking under 'swallowed = objects' when a child is not actually choking? It was a long and merry chase to discover whether coffee, tea, = alcohol or cigarettes would affect breast milk. The paragraph = heading for this is, 'The mother can lead a normal life', following = 'There are other ways to show affection too' (i.e. than breast-feeding); = so the two paragraphs come together in the index, as a subhead under = 'breast-feeding', 'mother's feelings'. No professional indexer would = have selected that heading, true; nor would he have omitted to state = anywhere in the index that the figures do in fact refer to page numbers, = though throughout the book the paragraph numbers are printed in bold = type, by comparison with which the page numbers are inconspicuous and = less precise. Perhaps the amount of secret knowledge that Dr. Spock = assumes about every mother is indicated by the fact that the only = reference to mothers he thinks necessary through this whole 595-page = book is, 'mother, working'! There is a legendary tale of a young mother who saw her baby fall = from the bed, and reached for her copy of Dr. Spock before reaching = for the fallen baby. I wonder what she looked for in the index? There = is no entry under 'falls'. (Edition referred to - The Bodley Head, 1958.)" Christine ************************************************************* Christine Shuttleworth - Indexing and Editorial Services Flat 1, 25 St Stephen's Avenue, London W12 8JB Tel/Fax (+44 181) 749 8797 email ChristineShuttleworth@compuserve.com or 106234.1745@compuserve.com *************************************************************= ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 09:08:49 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kay Popp Subject: genealogy This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BD54A8.F6343F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As a potential indexer, I am interested in indexing genealogical = materials. Does anyone out there work with that and can you tell me how = you like it? Kay mkpopp@wcnet.net ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BD54A8.F6343F20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As a potential indexer, I am = interested in=20 indexing genealogical materials.  Does anyone out there work with = that and=20 can you tell me how you like it?
 
Kay
mkpopp@wcnet.net
 
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BD54A8.F6343F20-- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:30:19 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: SSawula Subject: Unsubscribing I've misplaced my notes on how to unsubscribe from Index-L. Could someone point me in the right direction? At present I'm subscribed on two emails; one being juno and the other AOL. I want to unsubscribe from AOL only. Thank you for any assistance ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:33:52 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: BECohen653 Subject: ASI History/Archaeology SIG members Re: OAH indexing clinic A final reminder: If you are planning to send brochures, resumes, or business cards for inclusion in the OAH packets, please get them to me by the end of this week (March 27). We have an impressive packet of information to hand out, and I am happy to include information for any ASI members interested in participating. Send 50 copies of each item. Barbara E. Cohen 41 South Hawthorne Lane Indianapolis, IN 46219-6309 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:04:43 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cynthia Bertelsen Subject: For those who index history/literary theory Hi everyone, I just read a book called The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past (Windschuttle, Keith. The Free Press, c1996, ISBN 0-684-84445-1, $25.00). For those of you non-philosophers out there who index history (and literary theory, too) and who are trying to make head or tail of terms and relationships in postmodernism, poststructuralism, semiotics, cultural relativism, historical fiction and theory of poetics, anti-humanism and discourse theory, and the whole bit, this might be a good book to examine. The author is a traditional historian who loathes these "Paris designer" labels (as he calls these terms) and dissects the weaknesses of actual books of history based on these theories. In each chapter of his book, Windschuttle takes one or two of the labels and proceeds to "deconstruct" the theories! It sure beats reading Derrida in the original! Thanks to Paula Presley for reminding me about this book. ***************************************** Cynthia D. Bertelsen Freelance Indexer Bertelsen Indexing Services cbertel@usit.net Web page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bertel/ndx.html ***************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 22:11:29 +1100 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey and Glenda Browne Subject: Exema see Eczema--should we refer from incorrect spellings Hi all, Here's a topic perhaps a bit less daunting than embedded indexing, software purchases and so on. I recently looked up Exema in a book on home health care for kids. Although that spelling now looks obviously wrong, that is where I looked, and of course I found nothing. Using the table of contents I got to the correct section of the book, found the information I needed and the correct spelling. I then checked the index under Eczema and found a reference. I'm not normally a bad speller, so I guess that this would not be an uncommon mistake, and if I ever indexed a similar book I would be tempted to add the reference: Exema see Eczema. I believe this could aid a user, however it looks so silly that I don't know if I'd do it. Would you? Glenda. =================================== Jonathan Jermey and Glenda Browne Indexing, PC Training, Web Page Authoring http://www.users.bigpond.com/Diagonal Diagonal@bigpond.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:11:18 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: Exema see Eczema--should we refer from incorrect spellings In-Reply-To: <199803211955.LAA12413@mail-gw3.pacbell.net> At 10:11 PM 3/21/98 +1100, Glenda wrote: >I'm not normally a bad speller, so I guess that this would not be an >uncommon mistake, and if I ever indexed a similar book I would be tempted to >add the reference: Exema see Eczema. I believe this could aid a user, >however it looks so silly that I don't know if I'd do it. Would you? Hi Glenda, While it'd be a bit amusing, I'd resist the temptation to do that. ;-D But how about a cross reference to it from a main heading for "Rash"? Folks who don't know how to spell eczema would be likely to look under "Rash", would you agree? I think if we got into crossing from incorrect spellings, our indexes would swell monstrously and readers would be quite annoyed to have to scan past them to find what they want. Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:42:53 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: book titles in indexes In-Reply-To: <199803210521.XAA19615@mixcom.mixcom.com> One more point I'd like to add to what others have said: The situation you describe sounds just like a citation in a scholarly book. If the text says, "In _Consciousness Explained_, Dennett argues that X," I index Dennett and X but not the book title. Similarly, naming the cookbook that the recipe came from is merely a citation. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:49:37 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Buying embedded indexing programs In-Reply-To: <199803210521.XAA19615@mixcom.mixcom.com> Is FrameMaker only for DOS/Win? Or Mac, too? Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:05:12 -0800 Reply-To: Elinor Lindheimer Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: book titles in indexes Carol wrote: >The situation you describe sounds just like a citation in a scholarly >book. If the text says "In _Consciousness Explained_, Dennett >argues that X," I index Dennett and X but not the book title... I'd like to respectfully disagree. In this instance, in a scholarly book, I think the book title is an appropriate index entry along with the author's name and the subject of the argument. Scholars are continually referring to each other and to each other's works, whereas cookbook users are usually not so research-oriented. Elinor Lindheimer elinorl@mcn.org ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 18:49:23 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: AliaMM Subject: Re: Buying embedded indexing programs In a message dated 3/21/98 2:54:32 PM, Carol wrote: >Is FrameMaker only for DOS/Win? Or Mac, too? FrameMaker is a cross-platform product with versions for MacOS, Windows 95, Windows NT, SunOS/Solaris, HP UNIX, IBM AIX, and SGI IRIX. See for detailed information. Alia *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Alia Michaels aliamm@aol.com Freelance Technical Writer and Editor *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 18:17:33 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Roberta Horowitz Subject: Re: Exema see Eczema--should we refer from incorrect spellings Though this won't help in indexes there is the Medical Dictionary for Bad Spellers by joseph Krovisky, ISBN 0-471-31069-9. In this dictionary, like the Bad Speller's Dictionary you can look up the words by how they are misspelled and find the correct spelling. For those of us who can't spell these are great as you can't use a dictionary unless you can spell. Roberta Horowitz At 10:11 PM 3/21/98 +1100, you wrote: >Hi all, > >Here's a topic perhaps a bit less daunting than embedded indexing, software >purchases and so on. > >I recently looked up Exema in a book on home health care for kids. Although >that spelling now looks obviously wrong, that is where I looked, and of >course I found nothing. Using the table of contents I got to the correct >section of the book, found the information I needed and the correct >spelling. I then checked the index under Eczema and found a reference. > >I'm not normally a bad speller, so I guess that this would not be an >uncommon mistake, and if I ever indexed a similar book I would be tempted to >add the reference: Exema see Eczema. I believe this could aid a user, >however it looks so silly that I don't know if I'd do it. Would you? > >Glenda. >=================================== >Jonathan Jermey and Glenda Browne >Indexing, PC Training, Web Page Authoring >http://www.users.bigpond.com/Diagonal >Diagonal@bigpond.com > >