Why Desktop Publishing Is Right for Some Scientists, Wrong for Others

For anyone who has spent hours with pen in hand, poring over a word-processed scientific manuscript and filling in a multitude of blanks with equations and complicated graphs, the latest generation of desktop publishing software may sound like a dream come true. After all, some of these programs combine an array of capabilities that can make the operator the equivalent of a typesetter and layout artist. They allow the fluent integration of different functions— spreadsheets, word processors, graphics, for example; and the operator able is to adjust with relative ease the size and appearance of most visual elements blocks of text, graphic devices, figures, photographs, charts, tables, graphs, and so forth. Multiple typefaces and point sizes give documents a professional appearance and allow the insertion of complex equations. But don’t throw out your Rapidograph pen just yet Desktop publishing is a great computer application, but it requires a substantial investment in time and equipment. The expense and effort may be worth it if you often produce manuscripts that include complex graphics, lots of tables, or embedded equations; lengthy manuscripts that require different formats for different sections; manyreports in a standard format or camera-ready manuscripts, such as internal reports or limited-distribution publications. The software itself is costly, and keep in mind that if you intend to produce really classy-looking camera-ready materials, you’ll probably need a laser printer that will set you back $1,000. Now, if you do want the very best-looking documents and you are willing to pay the price—you might be able to toss away your Rapidograph pen after all One widely accepted desktop publishing program on the market today for IBM and compatible machines is Ventura, which is published by Xerox Corp. This is a monster package, which requires an enormous amount of memory, a mouse, a laser printer, and about a month of practice. At $895, it isn’t cheap. On the other hand, it is powerful, has almost unlimited flexibility, and creates striking effort. Ventura bandies book-length manuscripts with ease and has a system of style sheets that allow you to repeat formats with little effort. This product might be very helpful if, for example, you routinely produce agency reports that follow a standard format For sophisticated text editing, Ventura requires the use of a separate, dedicated word-processing package; for minor editing, the program’s built-in text editor is adequate. As for the challenge of learn- ing how to use Ventura, documentation has improved over time from the incomprehensible to the merely difficult. For Macintosh users, there is a package called PageMaker ($595 for Macintosh, $795 for IBM compatible) from Aldus Corp. As with most applications, desktop publishing on a Macintosh is quite different than it is on an IBM-oriented machine. You can see multiple type fonts on the screen, and you can easily import graphics files and figures. Several desktop publishing packages are available for the Mac, but PageMaker is generally accepted as the most capable. PageMaker is also easier to learn and less expensive than Ventura. In general, it takes about a week of practice to become familiar with PageMaker. The package is powerful and flexible, but does not have as many extra features or software fonts. It does use a mouse and a hard disk,but does'nt hog as much memory as Ventura. On the low end of the desktop publisbing offerings is Ashton-Tate’s Byline. It is much less expensive ($295) than either Ventura or PageMaker, uses only a basic IBM-type PC (no mouse, extra memory, or hard disk required), and is very easy to learn. Byline’s most serious limitation by comparison with the more powerful packages has to do with available typefaces and fonts. Byline uses only five typefaces, does not have a science/math/Greek letter font, and does not have the capabiilty for adding extra typefaces. As a result, Byline is not an option for manuscripts involving symbolic equations. However, for scientists using only text, figures, and graphic elements, it is a flaw package. The documentation and support for Byline are excellent, and it has a built-in text editor, so documents can actually be composed entirely within Byline. Before deciding to invest in one of these programs, you must consider the complexity of your scientific manuscripts. If you seldom write manuscripts involving more than text and a few tables, a desktop publishing is not worth the time and expense. However, if you prepare a variety of manuscripts, if the manuscripts are usually complex, or if you need camera-ready manuscripts, desktop publishing is definitely a plus. Diana Gabaldon is the editor of Science Software and director of the Arizona State University Scientific Database Facility, Tempe

Why Desktop Publishing Is Right for Some Scientists, Wrong for Others

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of