Re drawings: When I published my book with Wiley, they wanted the drawings as separate files, either in native Quark or Visio .vsd -- they would take PowerPoint .ppt but with the understanding that they would have them redrawn/reworked.
Re self-publishing: I do think that's the way to go -- faster to the public, easier to correct when mistakes do creep in (and they do -- we all change something and then miss one or two of the ripple effects). And with web publishing, you can include color drawings, which are immensely clearer than those limited to gray-scale. The one drawback, and it's a big one for most technical authors, is marketing -- we aren't good at it. Solve that, and we have a possible revolution in *timely* and *high-quality* material for people to learn from. Annlee Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > At 3:27 PM +0000 6/28/03, Thomas Larus wrote: > >>Thanks for the eye-opener. I did not know that many of the errors one finds >>in technical books are introduced in the editorial process. > > > There were two reasons I switched from Macmillan (deceased sister of > Cisco Press, but using lots of Cisco Press conventions) to Wiley: > lack of marketing (far less true of Cisco Press), and their > insistence on using a "development editor". Development editors are > _not_ copy editors, but conceptually have the role of "helping poor > techies write and express themselves." Well, some of us poor techies > already can write -- indeed, some of us have been editors. I found > her to be a constant obstacle. For example, she kept insisting, even > when three peer reviewers also told her she was wrong, that a "two > order of magnitude" increase meant doubling, not going up by 10 to > the power 2. > > Now, there are other people that liked their development editor and > found it a useful process. It's really a very individual thing, and > one size does not fit all. What works for me is to have a strong > technical colleague as reader and sounding board (Scott Bradner for > the WAN Survival Guide, and Annlee Hines for Building Service > Provider Networks). For the second book, I finally found an editor > that added to the process, Stephanie Landis. Officially, Stephanie > was the copy editor, but went slightly beyond that to the point I > needed -- tell me something doesn't flow, but don't try to fix it. > Wherever possible, I have CertZone contract with Stephanie to edit my > papers, but also have a technical reviewer. > > Cisco Press has gotten more reasonable over time, or it may be that I > know enough people and have enough track record that I might be > willing to do another book with them. At least in the present > economy, though, professional web self-publishing may be a viable > option. That doesn't mean I won't use editors, graphics people, > etc., but they will be people I know will add to the process. > Self-publishing also simplifies the update/errata process. > > >>Nor did I know >>that the publishers are not strong on things like diagrams and cover art. >>It sounds like I might do better working out the kinks in my Visio diagrams >>imported into Word, than relying on a publisher to be able to do a better >>job. I was thinking of using one of my nice-looking Visio diagrams as cover >>art, perhaps jazzing that one up with color. > > > I haven't found a publisher that really redraws -- they do things, > instead, such as standardize line widths, page alignment, etc. There > have been a few times where I would have liked to work with a > graphics professional to work out a very hard drawing with which I > wasn't getting the results that I wanted, but, in general, this is > something that has to be contracted on a case-by-case basis. The > publisher graphics people get involved, typically, only with the > finished manuscript. > > I don't know if there is an industry standard for drawing, although > the people I've talked to tend to use Adobe Illustrator. All the > publishers I know use Quark for page layout, which has interesting > ripple effects on what you can and can't do in Word. > > >>I don't care about getting an advance up front. If my book of CCIE lab >>advice and scenarios with detailed explanations (like Hutnik and Saterlee >>CCIE Lab Practice Kit) is of high quality, it will sell pretty well. The >>key, for me, is to make sure that it is of high quality. A few errors on >>crucial points can render an otherwise great technical book untrustworthy. >>I have caught some errors in my first three scenarios, and will probably >>find some in the next draft, too. The key to good writing is rewriting, I >>have been told. >> >>The only reason left for submitting a book to a big name publisher is to be >>able to say "I have a book published by Big Publisher, Inc." For someone >>without an established name or reputation, that is still something, but your >>post changes the whole cost/benefit analysis. I will have my hands full >>correcting my own mistakes, without having to fix the mistakes of editors. >> >>Thanks, >>Tom Larus, CCIE #10,014 >> >> >> >>Oppenheimer"" wrote in message >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> Black Jack wrote: >>> > >>> > That is very interesting. Can you give us a little more >>> > background about how your relationship with your publisher went >>> > so badly wrong? >>> >>> Sounds like I exaggerated a bit. :-) It didn't go that wrong. The >> >>publisher >> >>> says that the problems are all related to the economic downturn. I have > > my > >>> doubts, though. >>> >>> Cisco Press is still doing well. Of course, they have that vendor name on >>> their books which helps I'm sure. >>> >>> People aren't buying books, supposedly. Are you? :-) Just wondering... >>> >>> > I for one know very little about how >>> > publisher-author deals work and would like to hear more, it >>> > it's not too painful to relate! >>> >>> I can't tell you about my specific deal, but I can explain the process a >>> little bit. >>> >>> A writer works with an acquisitions editor. An acquisitions editor is a >>> sales person with extremely good negotiation skills. He or she sells the >>> author on the idea of working with the publisher. He or she also works >> >>with >> >>> the publisher's legal department to produce a contract that has > > everything > >>> in the pusblisher's favor: >>> >>> * No actual promises with regards to publishing, marketing or > > distributing > >>> the book >>> >>> * Exclusive rights which means that even if they do an awful job, the >> >>author >> >>> can't use the content for anything else >>> >>> * Requirement that you give your next book to them too (I refuse to sign >>> that one, though) >>> >>> * Royalties that range a lot from publisher to publisher, anywhere from > > 8% > >>> to 19% of the sale on each book, based on the price that the publisher >> >>gives >> >>> to the book reseller, which is much lower than the price that the reader >> >>pays >> >>> * Gazillions of exceptions to the royalties, with a lower rate for >>> internatainal sales, online sales, etc. etc. >>> >>> * An advance on the royalties, ranging from $1000 to $15,000 for a really >>> good publisher (this is one of the good things they do :-) >>> >>> Of course, as with everything, the author gets what he or she negotiates, >>> but a lot of us aren't very good negotiators. That's why many authors > > work > >>> with an agent. >>> >>> Oh, and did I mention that you shouldn't expect the publisher to do a > > good > >>> job with the things that you think of when you think "publisher" > > including > >>> editing, figure drawing (they insist on redrawing the figures), copy for >> >>the >> >>> back of the book, copy for Amazon and other marketing materials. Many of >>> them do an awful job with these tasks. Look at all the mistakes in the >>> books. In most cases they weren't introduced by the author. The author is >>> supposed to catch them with the "page proofs" but that's much harder than >> >>it >> >>> sounds, and sometimes the errors get introduced after the page proofs. >>> >>> Just the other day I was reading a really good book about voice. The >> >>author >> >>> said something about the DSPs in Cisco routers that do the >> >>analog-to-digital >> >>> conversion and other tasks. DSP was spelled out as "domain specific > > part." > >>> An editor at work. >>> >>> I had an editor who tried to change "powers of two" to "groups of two?" > > An > >>> editor working in the computer industry didn't understand the powers of >>> two!? And that is par for the course. >>> >>> Now, I do have to say that the editors of Top-Down Network Design did a >>> great job. The only mistakes that really drive me nuts are in the index, >>> which they didn't have me proof. I hate the fact that they spelled on LFN >> >>as >> >>> long filename in the index, when the page that uses the acronym uses it > > to > >>> refer to Long Fat Networks. And they put "top-down network" in the index >>> with lots of references. What the heck is a top-down network? >>> >>> With Troubleshooting Campus Networks, a lot of the mistakes were because > > I > >>> didn't page proof well enough, I have to admit. I assumed they had done a >>> good job, which they hadn't. But they did a great index, on the other >> >>hand. >> >>> So there you have way more info than you probably wanted! :-) >>> >>> Priscilla >>> >> >> > > >> >>> > >>> > > Obviously I made a big mistake in choice of publisher, but who >>> > > could have known? They are one of the most prestigious >>> > > publishers. But their motto is: >>> > > >>> > > "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear >>> > it, >>> > > it doesn't matter. At least the other forests didn't get the >>> > > tree." >>> > > >>> > > Am I bitter? You bet. I was swindled. >>> > > >>> > > Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71602&t=71462 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
