Talk:Desktop publishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Graphic design (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Typography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Reference needed?[edit]

'There are two types of pages in desktop publishing, electronic pages and virtual paper pages to be printed on physical paper pages. All computerized documents are technically electronic, which are limited in size only by computer memory or computer data storage space' I'm doing my dissertation on technology and the printed page, but can't seem to find any other references anywhere online to a 'virtual paper page'. Is this a genuine term? It's not referenced and for all I know could be completely made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

More work needed[edit]

Woah. This needs much more work... Intrigue 18:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right on, Intrigue! --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Infography is not only Desktop Publishing, for example 3d Maya or Autocad, both brains are parts of infography but not specified related with Desktop Publishing. Even more Ascii arts is also infography.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 2006-03-21 21:07:32.

suggestions for improvement[edit]

This page should note that among graphic designer and other profesionals who use page layout software, "desktop publishing" is used as in a pejorative sense. Page layout is the prefered nomenclature, and denotes the more profesional software packages of InDesign and QuarkXpress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 2006-06-01 07:35:15.


It would be nice to see a "List of DTP software" page, and a "Comparison of DTP software" page, in line with other software genres. Unfortunately, I know very little about the subject, so I can't do it. 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it would be nice to see a list of softwares for desktop publishing this website is stupid and not needed theres no point —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Attitude regarding non-WYSIWYG tools[edit]

To me, this article seems borderline antagonistic towards non-WYSWIYG tools despite the potential benefits gained from them. For example, the inability of current WYSIWYG tools to generate HTML which properly follows the box model and separates all presentation into external CSS files.

Another such example would be LyX which employs what they refer to as a WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) interface, providing a graphical interface to LaTeX so that the user can focus on composition without the vagarities of typesetting getting in the way. (Though it's graphical, variations in text styling in WYSIWYM indicates semantic differences (eg. chapter heading) rather than presentational ones)

Ssokolow (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What statements in the article sound antagonistic to you? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not the original author but the following statements may have been what he meant: "...occupies a substantial but shrinking niche in technical writing and textbook publication...", which - although possibly true - is uncited and looks like personal opinion. "since much software in this genre is freely available, it can be more cost-effective than the professionally-oriented DTP systems", may imply that they are still around only because they are free and if someone needs "professional" results they should go for the "professionally-oriented DTP systems". In fact, none of the advantages of TeX or other systems are mentioned (I won't repeat them here, they are mentioned on the respective pages). The entire comparison could be summed up to "DTP is WYSIWYG and interactive, the others are not but they are free".
Moreover, there are interactive, WYSIWYG LaTeX front-ends like Bakoma or maybe Gummi (haven't used them) and other TeX editors have facilities to automate some work (e.g. entering tables, figures, cross-references, citations) so the statement "requiring the user to enter the processing program's markup language manually without a direct visualization of the finished product" looks like an exaggeration to scare people away. In fact, the users of TeX and other layout tools would say that editing the markup language is an advantage, since they are not distracted by the presentation. Xdalai (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Distinctions between books and single page publishing[edit]

This page makes no distinction between true book creating software, like FrameMaker, and layout software. In my (biased) opinion, the phrase "Desktop Publishing" more closely describes what FrameMaker does than the function of graphic and text layout software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of distinctions are you expecting? Are there any single page layout programs that can't be used to create books? It seems that you are talking about software features rather than software categories or skill classifications. There is no fine line here. If you are talking about database publishing, that's a separate article and a separate subject matter altogether. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a good point. I have written books in EMACS, ED, WordPerfect, PageMaker, Ventura Publisher, Microsoft Word, and FrameMaker, among other programs. While it can be done in any of them, there are features in some that are more useful for composing one-off pages, and there are others that have less emphasis on page layout features and more emphasis on indexing, footnoting, and crossreferencing. I'm not sure where or how to draw the line. Msml (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If the professionals who use InDesign and QuarkXpress for page design, and FrameMaker for book design, agree that their respective software tools are related but distinct enough to be treated separately, what other authority need be consulted? You could write a book(let) or create a page design in PowerPoint, but it doesn't have specialized tools for those purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The distinction is in software features, not software type. Granted, I wouldn't use FrameMaker to do a single page layout. But the main distinction between a program like FrameMaker and InDesign is the ease at which you can publish larger books with multiple simultaneous content developers vs smaller books with fewer sequential content developers. That's based on individual features that may eventually be merged in to one software or the other. There really is no "book publishing" software classification for this reason. Even Adobe Systems is positioning it as a specialized software to "publish technical documentation." This has much more to do with the type of content being published than the format in which it's published. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Colour management[edit]

I feel this article has missed the point about desktop publishing. Especially with quotes such as this: "While desktop publishing software still provides extensive features necessary for print publishing, modern word processors now have publishing capabilities beyond those of many older DTP applications, blurring the line between word processing and desktop publishing."

Although I cannot put the words in myself, my understanding is that Desktop Publishing applications are all about publishing, and hence this means management of bleeds, colors and the print process.

for example the main reason I have to use something like scribus is that it provides colour management so that colours are accurately transferred from the electronic to the printed version.

can someone with more expertise add this type of information, and if other people agree remove the comment above which I believe is false. Rimmeraj (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken Links[edit]

It looks like the link "Oxtra Publisher for Mac OS X" under "External Links" is down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence and references to first desktop publishing magazine were "reverted"[edit]

The article states "For example, .info magazinebecame the very first desktop-published, full-color, newsstand magazine in the last quarter of 1986..."

There were at least two (and possible three) magazines that were produced solely by desktop publishing techniques. Also, the reference for this statement doesn't exist (anymore).

In fact, the first magazine produced with the desktop publishing tools mentioned in the "Desktop Publishing" article -- PageMaker, and Adobe PostScript for typesetting -- was the one I published in 1985, "Desktop Publishing Magazine" -- which was acquired in 1986 and renamed Publish! magazine.

I edited this "Desktop Publishing" page to add this information and create a new page for "Desktop Publishing Magazine". I just added factual information about my magazine, with references, and didn't change anything else. However, someone removed the information (and references) that I added, with no explanation.

Here is what I added:

'Desktop Publishing magazine (ISSN 0884-0873) was founded, edited, and published by Tony Bove and Cheryl Rhodes of TUG/User Publications, Inc., of Redwood City, CA (dubbed the "dynamic duo of desktop publishing" by [[Denise Caruso]]).[1]). Its first issue, which appeared in October, 1985, was the first magazine issue entirely created and produced on a personal computer with desktop publishing software (PageMaker on a Macintosh),[2] preparing output on a prototype PostScript-driven typesetting machine from [[Mergenthaler Linotype Company]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybove (talkcontribs) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Tonybove (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was removed because it was not neutral in tone, was added by someone with a clear conflict of interest, and because the main claim of notability (being the first magazine produced on a PC) was cited to a self published, rather than a reliable, source. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It may have been my mistake to put the "reliable" sources in the Desktop Publishing Magazine page rather than here. I think these sources are very reliable: ^ "Word of Mouth by Denise Caruso: The Dynamic Duo Publishes Again". Media Letter. Sept. 1990. Retrieved 1990-09-01. ^ "Altair Implementation in the Graphic Arts". DigiBarn Curator/DigiBarn Computer Museum. September 9th, 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-09. ^ "Personal Computers; The Certain Approach of Desktop Publishing". The New York Times. July 15, 1986. Retrieved 1986-07-15. ^ "Computer publishing's whiz kid". Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management. February 1987. Retrieved 2010-07-17.

As the person who actually published the magazine, I feel like an intruder -- and yet, there are confusing instructions about what to do. In "Dealing with articles about yourself" it says that "Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself." And yet, that's not the case here.

Can I please (or can someone please) edit the article to be more accurate and include the first DTP magazine? Thanks!

Tonybove (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you do think they're reliable, and that this is a 'very obvious error', but a 'very obvious error' is something like the Tony Bove article getting your birthday wrong, not that you are not personally mentioned on this article. The main thrust of the WP:COI guideline is that it is very difficult to objectively evaluate content that is related to ourselves and our works. Please do not add this content again. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, now that I've made this mistake, I can't correct it? I can't even edit the article to add Desktop Publishing Magazine as a fact (with no mention of my name, or anyone's name, or any claim to being first)? Since it is "ancient history" for the computer industry, it's not likely that anyone else will ever edit the article, as it is rated "low importance". Oh well...

Tonybove (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should not add references to yourself in other Wikipedia articles, particularly if your source for the claim of notability is a self published site such as Digibarn. However, you are right that .info magazine's claim was also not reliably sourced, so I have removed that as well. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Tonybove (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

first desktop publishing on IBM[edit]

While the Mac programs were certainly influential, desktop publishing was done on IBM PCs even before the Macintosh was introduced. Here is The Seybold Report on Publishing Systems--the most authoritative source--on personal computer publishing programs from 1985 (vol 15, no. 2): "Bestinfo. This little company from near Philadelphia got the jump on the competition with the first WYSIWYG composition program running on a personal computer..."

And Seybold Report for February 13, 1984 (vol. 13, no. 10) says Bestinfo used this program in production in 1983, although it was not yet offered for sale then. There were also other early desktop publishing programs on the IBM PC, including Studio Software. There is no doubt that desktop publishing on the Macintosh soon surpassed that on the IBM PC, but desktop publishing actually began on the IBM platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The category of desktop publishing software was in existence before 1984 and it was not invented on the PC or the Mac.

I used a desktop publishing program created for the Apple II, back in 1979, 1980 or 1981. Its name was Gutenberg. This was a WYSIWYG editor that allowed creation of complex equations and other complex graphic elements and integration of them with text. Document length was limited only by available storage.

When I worked at WordStar (then called MicroPro) in 1983, we were well aware of desktop publishing software. We saw it as a different entity from our word processing software. The exemplar, for us, ran on the Xerox STAR (which we had sometimes used to lay out manuals for our products). The STAR came out, I believe, in 1981. CemKaner (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

'Desktop publishing' and TeX[edit]

I'm not sure early versions of TeX are relevant to 'desktop publishing'. They ran on minicomputers (initially the enormous DEC PDP-10), not desktop PCs. Moreover, if typesetting systems based on minicomputers are considered 'desktop publishing', then the concept goes back to the minicomputer-based 'runoff' derivatives of the late 1960s. By that standard, it arguably goes back even further, to Saltzer's original TYPSET/RUNOFF software for mainframes, written in 1964. Faagel (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Normal" desktop publishing vs. professional desktop publishing?[edit]

The article sometimes just uses "desktop publishing", and sometimes "professional desktop publishing", which gives me the impression that it separates between the two. Does it do that intentionally?

It also seems to suggest that normal desktop publishing would normally be less powerful that traditional typography and printing, as it says that "when used skillfully, desktop publishing software can produce printed literature with attractive layouts and typographic quality comparable to traditional typography and printing". Is it the case that normal desktop publishing is normally less powerful? —Kri (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article protection needed[edit]

This article was vandalized on 4 September 2012 and NO ONE CAUGHT IT for two-and-a-half years. Any available admin, please add indefinite protection on this article. Thanks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ {{cite web|url= of Mouth by Denise Caruso: The Dynamic Duo Publishes Again|publisher=Media Letter|date=Sept. 1990|accessdate=1990-09-01}}
  2. ^ {{cite web|url= Implementation in the Graphic Arts|publisher=DigiBarn Curator/DigiBarn Computer Museum|date=September 9th, 2009|accessdate=2009-09-09}}