DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > General Publishing Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2005, 03:20 PM   #1
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default New BS for correcting marks

BS 5261, the British Standard for proof correction, has just been issued. I haven't seen it, for only rich printers et al. can afford it (it costs £64 to non-members of BSI), but I expect it continues the non-verbal marks that have been official in the UK since 1976, when BS 5261 came out.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2005, 07:09 PM   #2
Paul
Member
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 267
Default

It would not have occurred to me that "BS" meant British Standard.
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2005, 02:16 PM   #3
PeterArnel
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North of Swindon in the UK on the edge of the Cotswolds
Posts: 997
Default

Hey thats under the belt - there are no rich printers :-) and why would we want to know about marks anyway - we just print what we are told these days

Peter
PeterArnel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005, 01:23 AM   #4
Mike
Staff
 
Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Llanwrtyd Wells
Posts: 1,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Rowley
BS 5261, the British Standard for proof correction, has just been issued. I haven't seen it, for only rich printers et al. can afford it (it costs £64 to non-members of BSI), but I expect it continues the non-verbal marks that have been official in the UK since 1976, when BS 5261 came out.
I wonder hor different it is. I does strike me that BS 5261 was very much rooted in the metal type era. Something more appropriate to electronic systems could be welcome -- though I doubt it will catch on in my lifetime.

I see the important bit of the new standard is available for £5

http://www.bsi-global.com/Quality_ma...bs5261C.xalter

   
__________________
Mike

www.welshframing.com

Last edited by Mike; 10-24-2005 at 01:38 AM.
Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005, 07:40 AM   #5
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Mike:

It does strike me that BS 5261 was very much rooted in the metal type era

In 1976, when BS 5261 was first published, most printed work in the UK and the rest of Europe was produced from metal type. However, printed matter always entails someone's hitting keys at some stage of the original production process, and they're not always the right ones. What is not yet clear, even now, is how the editor's or proofreader's pencil or pen marks on hard copy should be replaced by marks produced electronically on electronic copy or output.

BSI always has published simple cards showing the marks: obviously its charges, as ever, are extortionate—as are those of ANSI, AFNOR, DIN, etc.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005, 07:49 AM   #6
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Peter:

that's under the belt

Of course, I didn't mean you, Peter!

Actually, the people in charge of the presses never were very interested in what the compositors gave them to print, were they? It's just that 'printers' nowadays do not always concern themselves with the entire process, from manuscript to the end-product. However, a printer is generally interested in print finishing, isn't he?

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005, 01:21 PM   #7
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,918
Default

>>paul: It would not have occurred to me that "BS" meant British Standard.

ROFL!!! Me either...pedestrian American that I am...'-}}

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005, 03:14 PM   #8
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Terrie:

pedestrian American that I am

The usual word is 'hick', I believe. I should perhaps have written out 'BS' in full in the title, but I relied on the less sophisticated readers' going to the text of the message, just out of curiosity.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2005, 12:41 AM   #9
Mike
Staff
 
Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Llanwrtyd Wells
Posts: 1,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Rowley
Mike:

What is not yet clear, even now, is how the editor's or proofreader's pencil or pen marks on hard copy should be replaced by marks produced electronically on electronic copy or output.
I wasn't thinking so much about that as the way copy editors, in particular, mark up mss. In my experience they mark them up in a way that is fine for someone keying in the text but not for someone editing author-entered stuff.

Proof-readers marks are better (in that they're generally easier to spot) but, in my experience, few proof readers consistently mark up corrections in a way that reflects effective editing. I seem to quite often find I'm deleting material and then having to type it back in again if I don't read ahead sufficiently before actioning corrections.

The only on-screen edited mss I've had to deal with (for a text book) was a doddle. It had been edited in Word and the editor had made all the corrections for me and I only had to review and accept the changes in Word before placing the text into whatever I was using at the time. Saved me an enormous amount of time.

   
__________________
Mike

www.welshframing.com
Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2005, 06:46 AM   #10
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Mike:

the way copy editors, in particular, mark up mss. In my experience they mark them up in a way that is fine for someone keying in the text

That used to be OK when a corrected hard-copy MS had to be keyed-in to something: there proofreading marks were not appropriate. But when copy-editors are marking on hard copy what has to be altered on-screen, you need to be your attention drawn to the corrections only by means of marginal marks.

Word has its own scheme (which can be modified to some extent), but it doesn't use standard proof-correcting marks, which on course are different again from copy-correcting marks. I find it pretty easy to use, except when individual letters or punctuation marks are deleted, with or without substitution. I find it best if the whole word is struck out and the corrected word is substituted. But not very many correcters think of that.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quotation marks in InDesign CureMarie Print Design 12 07-02-2006 01:16 PM
Word to QXP (Win) typographic marks Paul Print Design 5 06-27-2006 02:36 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.