Re: [Marketing] extra office features
Hi, I'm skipping the Word Processing vs. DTP part now, because I find your arguments valid on the basis of how word processors work and how DTP programs work. In the end, the more realistic focus i'm having is strengthen the DTP like parts in Writer and strengthen the style metaphor. > That would be interesting. And it has applications. Something like a CMS, > except for documents instead of just web pages. I like the idea, and would > be interested in using it, if it existed. But I think that probably, the > vast majority of people (and I'm basis this on usage statistics) want > WYSIWYG. Word is far more popular than LaTex. I didn't say you couldn't i wouldn't wanna do that in a WYSYWYG manner. > In other words, it would force the user to apply >> styles to everything. But it would also help the user in doing that, it >> would automatically suggest styles (i.e. based on the previous/next >> style) settings in the styles themselves. > > Forcing users is bad. No means no. Ok, it's obviously bad to use words like "forcing". Makes you go defense mode just by reading it. How about "translating" or "suggesting"? What I'm thinking of has basically been done in this or that way already, just not consequently enough. I.e. MS-Word automatically internally creates a new style for every different formatting. That's basically all we need, together with OOo's ability to have page, image and frame styles. Now all we need is replace things like "bold", "italic" and so on with semantic formatting options like "strong", "emphasis" etc. . And provide default "strong" and "emphasis" styles that are i.e. bold and italic. Add a bit of non-interrupting UI that suggests styles to the user. Styles here means it suggests semantic attributes like "Is this a heading?" - "Yes" "No"...or similarly (this example is in fact too simplistic). This way the user is forced (without feeling restrained at all) to use semantic formatting instead of optical and once you are that far it's pretty easy to provide capability to introduce templates (aka stylesheets) that the user can't violate through individual formatting. Yes, this is in a way a restriction for the user, but it is a choosable restriction - as soon as he uses the template, he can't violate the template, if he wants to do different stuff, he can start from scratch and create his own styles. I strongly believe that this kind of restriction actually empowers authors in business offices who don't want to bother about layout but would still be able to create layouted documents that pratically layout themselves as they type the content. > That's good to know from a techie standpoint - but that doesn't matter at > all to the end user. That may explain why the problem exists - but it does > nothing to fix it or make it better. Maybe we should write an office suite > in XUL. Look at what projects like SongBird - > http://www.songbirdnest.com/- and Flock - > http://www.flock.com/ - are doing with it. Of course that changes nothing. But it's where we are. The problem is that these cross-platform approaches are indeed not cross-platform approaches. They introduce their own platforms that themselves are cross-platform, but now the new cross-platform challenge isn't about Windows, MacOS and Linux anymore, but rather about XUL, GTK and OOo Bridge. ;-) So what do we do? Decide for one of them? Then which is the best, really? Perhaps we can create another cross-platform environment? ;-) > Your "discrediting" of my point about why a sutie should be a suite and not > just some random collection of programs - you seem to think that all > programs in the world should use the same format (so they can pull from the > same database of contacts, for example) that's great, and in a perfect > world, I'm sure they would. But they don't. And they won't. Not ever. > But all OpenOffice.org programs can open the same ODF formats. So > having an > OpenOffice.org email client / PIM / calendar / browser / project manager / > diagrammer / DTP / whatever - they would all pull from the same document > types. We can't make every other program open our database files. We > can't > even make every other open source program open our database files. What we > can do is make a program that does. What do we need ODF for, then? It's all about creating inter-program-suite standards, so that different programs actually can interact. Furthermore, database access is more or less standardized. All you need is a standard address database format. And it doesn't need to be supported by all applications, it just needs to be an agreement of Mozilla and OOo for a start. > Here's another reason for an email client to be a part of the same suite as > an HTML editor and the same suite as a word processor and the same as a > DTP... Shared libraries I agree, but I'd say your approach isn't quite the right one. What you want is a propriatery approach...provide everything from one vendor and you will have no
Re: [Marketing] Open Document viewer
On Fri, 2006-21-07 at 19:46 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: > They already know about it and uploaded the plug-in some time ago, its > on the Mozilla website. You can download it here: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1888/ Version 0.2 has a reasonably recent copy of the XSLT, but not the most recent. Naturally, the plugin will never have the latest features. One important feature is that 0.2 should work on Windows (the previous version didn't). Some people report that "it works locally but not on-line". This is due to the fact that very few web servers are configured to send the right mimetype for OpenDocument files. The only servers I know of that manage that right are: The INGOTs, The OpenDocument Fellowship and Friends of OpenDocument. If you are a webmaster, or can get in touch with a webmaster, please tell them to put the following code on their .htaccess file. It will make their Apache server send the right mimetype for ODF iles: # Regular documents. AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text .odt AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet .ods AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.presentation .odp AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.graphics .odg AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.chart.odc AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.formula .odf AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.image.odi # Templates AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text-template .ott AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet-template .ots AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.presentation-template .otp AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.graphics-template .otg AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.chart-template.otc AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.formula-template .otf AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.image-template.oti # Master documents and HTML templates AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text-master .odm AddType application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text-web .oth Cheers, Daniel. -- http://opendocumentfellowship.org "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Marketing] Open Document viewer
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 12:06 +0200, Finn Gruwier Larsen wrote: > Benjamin Horst skrev: > > An ODF-capable Firefox seems like such a valuable tool, that I imagine > > (and hope) Firefox will integrate it quickly into the application > > itself, or at least highlight the extension so that many people will > > download it. > > That was exactly my thought, too! I believe that ODF-enabled Firefox > would cause a very rapid spread of ODF all over the world - maybe the > next Internet revolution is just around the corner :-) > > Seriously - I think we should contact the Firefox-people concerning this > idea... They already know about it and uploaded the plug-in some time ago, its on the Mozilla website. Its just another piece in the jig-saw. Ian -- www.theINGOTS.org www.schoolforge.org.uk www.opendocumentfellowship.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] extra office features
Hi André, On 7/21/06, André Wyrwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You really don't want to have your avarage corporate content provider create the prepress for your flyers. It goes through the fingers of a graphics designer anyway. If you can afford a graphics designer. Last I checked, most megacorps use MS Office or WP. OOo is used more by individuals, schools, and SMB. People and groups who are much more likely to be doing most things in house on da cheep! But i actually do agree that DTP is big. Much bigger than word processing. In fact, word processing is a desease, in my opinion. As some good article i read not too long ago, pointed out, you either need a text editor to create content that doesn't need layout or you need to create a layouted/formatted document and hence a DTP application. That's why I'm saying, make Writer more of a DTP application. Trash the whole word processing metaphor. Word processors are unusable. MS is trying to solve this by UI changes now, but it will only help them so far. OOo has potential to solve it by taking the style metaphor further than MS, but still doesn't go far enough. See further below... Word Processing a disease? Hardly. As someone pointed out - try writing a book in a DTP - or a 20 page report. You want to know why DTP suck for multi-page, single story documents? Two words - Text Boxes. I don't want to have to define a text box on each page for 500 pages. And if all / most that I have is text boxes, why do I need a DTP? I do need spell check. I do need a thesaurus. I do need a grammar checker. I do need bullet points. I do need an outliner. I do need font controls / styles. I do need headers and footers. All these are word processing things. Things that Word does better than PageMaker. You say content that doesn't need a layout. I think there is a lot more to content than layout. And I say that this content needs more than Notepad has to offer. What are these dependencies? For my windows install i only needed Ghostscript. Well, yes, could be integrated into the installer. Distribution issue. Distribution issues are issues. And for Mac (check the site) there are like 5 or 6 things you have to find online, then copy and paste into some libraries thing. They should be included in the installer - yes, that's a distribution issue. But it's a barrier for the end user, and it sucks. It could be the best program in the world - but if Joe Schmoe can't understand how to install it - then Joe Schmoe will never use it. I've actually installed Aqua Scribus on my Mac before, using Fink via Fink Commander, but I wasn't impressed eenough to stop using my 8 year old copy of Adobe Pagemaker 6.5 in Classic. ...exactly. If you wanna go that far, HTML/CSS is the ideal thing for me. In an ideal world you would create unformatted content that is semantically structured, just like in HTML/XML. You would then apply different stylesheets to that content just like in CSS/XSLT to get a print document, an email, a web page or a presentation out of it. But so far no-one goes that way and HTML/CSS is still not powerful enough to replace classic DTP. That would be interesting. And it has applications. Something like a CMS, except for documents instead of just web pages. I like the idea, and would be interested in using it, if it existed. But I think that probably, the vast majority of people (and I'm basis this on usage statistics) want WYSIWYG. Word is far more popular than LaTex. In other words, it would force the user to apply styles to everything. But it would also help the user in doing that, it would automatically suggest styles (i.e. based on the previous/next style) settings in the styles themselves. Forcing users is bad. No means no. So, back to topic: Is web creation really business for an Office Suite at current state? Look at a random business. Look at a random SMB. That changes your scenario quite a bit. Problem here is the different environments: - QT (Scribus) - GTK/GNOME (GIMP, Evolution, etc.) - XUL (Mozilla) - OOo Bridge (OOo) - wxWindows (...) Basically, they are all cross-platform or on the way there. XUL and OOo are just the ones that are the most successful at current state. That's good to know from a techie standpoint - but that doesn't matter at all to the end user. That may explain why the problem exists - but it does nothing to fix it or make it better. Maybe we should write an office suite in XUL. Look at what projects like SongBird - http://www.songbirdnest.com/- and Flock - http://www.flock.com/ - are doing with it. Your "discrediting" of my point about why a sutie should be a suite and not just some random collection of programs - you seem to think that all programs in the world should use the same format (so they can pull from the same database of contacts, for example) that's great, and in a perfect world, I'm sure they would. But they don't. And they won't. Not ever. But all Ope
Re: [Marketing] extra office features
Hi, > To a certain extent I agree with this, but the long and short of it is > that there is a place for both. Ever tried writing a novel in PageMaker > or InDesign? I'd say do that in an editor and do the layouting in a DTP application afterwards. I bet the functionality of Writer used for writing a novel is what...10%? Probably even less. However, I'd much prefer to see a breakup of that whole concept and an incarnation of a content/design separation joined seemlessly in a smart UI as mentioned before. > It's no more fun doing that than it is to lay out a > magazine in Writer or Word. There is a place for both, and I think that > a DTP application is a logical next step for the OOo project, but not > until the existing components (such as Base) are more or less perfected. > (Most of the components are close, but some--like Base--still have > issues that need to be a priority.) I agree to that. > Honestly, a lot of businesses do have someone in their office do their > website. Yeah, but what do they work with, Frontpage? Or is it rather more often the case that they have a DreamWeaver (or a text editor ;-) ) around? > Should they? Well, that depends. I have seen some very nice > websites done by people in their office using something like Frontpage. > They are few and far between, but they do exist, and if you are a very > small business, you do what you can with what you've got. Only that i wonder if a program like Frontpage really helps that "what you can". But i guess you are right, there surely are some businesses who have a Frontpage created web page. > It depends on your purpose. I mean, Framemaker is essentially a huge > word processor, and it's great for technical projects in which you need > an illustration to stay with your specific chunk of text. In fact, I'd > love to see OOo have all of the capabilities of FM without the really > heady structuring. (How cool would it be to be able to place > illustrations and references to illustrations that all autonumber? Or to > be able to refer to Illustration X on Page Y and have X and Y change > according to where the text flow put the illustration?) See, i think we are actually all thinking in the same direction. And XML seems to be the right media for that. André. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] extra office features
Hi, > My feeling is it is all so entrenched in existing application types. A feeling that i share with you about OOo in general. ;-) > Then integrate them with tasks and > project management. ... I will spare you the details her to come to the > more OOo relevant parts. Exactly. Project Management is in that sense a Mozilla task, not an OOo task, because it is much closer to eMail than it is to Writer, Calc or Impress. In fact, if OOo would do serious workflow functionality, that would change things. But workflow management should actually be an independent project after all. > For word-processing and DTP I think OOo has an opportunity to do the > right thing, which is become a universal XML editing processor. Imagine > what you could do if Base (in part) would be a native XML database and > the core of all document load and saving (may be building indexes on the > fly)? Now go and apply styles that not only enforce (warn for > violations) of data rules (manifested in XML Schemas, etc.) I think what you elaborate on here is kind of what i'm imagining...and yes, takes it further. I'm happy if we'd get the style thing done consequently. ;-) > I understand it is hard to successfully invent things (may be I'm too > much a developer) and also risky > (http://conficio.blogspot.com/2006/07/striving-for-total-innovation-is-bad.html > - shameless plug for my blog) but for marketing purposes thinking > outside of the box is better than continuing debates over word > processing vs. DTP (and ending up agreeing, that they both have their > place ;-) Hei, hei, I'm not agreeing on that. ;-) André. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] extra office features
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi guys, I read with interest your discussion on more features/applications for OOo. My feeling is it is all so entrenched in existing application types. Outlook stinks because it is awfully slow and only proprietary MS exchange makes it what it is. Thunderbird is decent but its Address Book is primitive. I haven't seen any address book that does what people need in an Internet connected world. First separate person from company and from addresses and eliminate all this double data entry. Then natively support some synchronization with PDA and services like Plaxo. That could become a worthy Address book for the 21st century. By the way the Massachusetts ODF argument applies to address books as well. E-Mail programs are in need of a revolution as well. At first make signature an (almost) mandatory feature, so recipients can safely filter on them to avoid spam or prioritize. Then integrate them with tasks and project management. ... I will spare you the details her to come to the more OOo relevant parts. For word-processing and DTP I think OOo has an opportunity to do the right thing, which is become a universal XML editing processor. Imagine what you could do if Base (in part) would be a native XML database and the core of all document load and saving (may be building indexes on the fly)? Now go and apply styles that not only enforce (warn for violations) of data rules (manifested in XML Schemas, etc.) Imagine you have a book-template that knows that a title, toc, sections, headlines, paragraphs, etc. are mandatory and that page styles need to be odd/even, etc. Imagine a business letter-template knows the corporate head, that a "regarding" line and date field is mandatory and that an image for the signature can be substituted and it has fields to insert an address and store it for later potential use in the improved address book (like Thunderbird does with e-mail addresses). May be it also knows how to bundle a few attachment documents in a mime-like fashion. Then think a flier-template that knows its basic the two column layout, headline, the header and footer and their space defined by margins. It will warn you if you enter too much text and show you the overflow. May be it allows you to adjust font sizes within reason (set by the designer) and has rules where you can place how many images, etc. It also should restrict you to the corporate fonts or at least warn you if you violate such rules. It could even suggest that sentences or paragraphs are too long or that it is a good idea to have at least one bulleted list. I understand it is hard to successfully invent things (may be I'm too much a developer) and also risky (http://conficio.blogspot.com/2006/07/striving-for-total-innovation-is-bad.html - - shameless plug for my blog) but for marketing purposes thinking outside of the box is better than continuing debates over word processing vs. DTP (and ending up agreeing, that they both have their place ;-) I think our marketing focus should be on controlled trials of new ideas and backing them up with research in what the users need. I believe that future content building will not be isolated in the document metaphor but rather come from different sources and will mix data with text (comment and interpretation). If all this is encoded in XML a universal integrator UI is needed that lets users combine, and reference and output in multiple ways (XML-FO?). Just my five cents to advance the debate. K - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://conficio.blogspot.com/ | We teach software one screencast at a time | http://www.conficio.com/ Tel: +1 (781) 632 5773 - Fax: +1 (781) 207 9159 Conficio P.O.Box 761062, Melrose, MA 02176 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEwOZARDUvrJRNjTARAjmMAJ9/CS/zbfQYrtOBvkgOPZ5b0nNBVwCfbxIy iPkv7fNQX/7Xkh06WsW5SrM= =hTim -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] extra office features
André Wyrwa wrote: No we don't. Mozilla is doing sufficient work in that area and we don't need to re-invent the wheel. All we need to do is integrate with Mozilla products wherever possible. Tight integration - like download them at the same time tight. And Thunderbird needs a lot of work, from what I hear. (I use Gmail online, so what do I know about a mail client?) That's a distribution topic, not a development one. What can you make better in Thunderbird in terms of integration with OOo components? Well, you could have a database or calc file (database is better) with your contacts and you could use Writer to create your mail bodies. But what for? In MS-Office i always disabled the "use Word to edit emails" option. Yes, Thunderbird needs a lot of work, but it is on the other hand quite a good emailer already. And do you think it would need less work to create just another one from scratch? I'd rather go the improve Thunderbird way. Everything else really is a distribution issue. I fall in between these two positions. I would love to see OOo be able to integrate very tightly with Thunderbird if the user chose. For that matter, what I'd REALLY like to see is OOo be able to integrate with whatever email client the user wanted. It would be like getting MS Office, but if you hated Outlook the way I do, you could simply swap it out for Thunderbird. Of course, this is more or less a never-to-be-fulfilled fantasy because the folks writing the various email clients would have to all modify their work to standardize with OOo's requirements and that's very unlikely. (Actually, now that I think about it, there may be solutions on the OOo side of this to make the exchange relatively easy. Hmmm...) Why is DTP outside of an office suite? You don't make flyers in an office? I make them all the time - and bulletins, and posters, and newsletters DTP is big, and should be included in an office suite. People say Draw is good for this - not in my experience, but YMMV. You really don't want to have your avarage corporate content provider create the prepress for your flyers. It goes through the fingers of a graphics designer anyway. But i actually do agree that DTP is big. Much bigger than word processing. In fact, word processing is a desease, in my opinion. As some good article i read not too long ago, pointed out, you either need a text editor to create content that doesn't need layout or you need to create a layouted/formatted document and hence a DTP application. That's why I'm saying, make Writer more of a DTP application. Trash the whole word processing metaphor. Word processors are unusable. MS is trying to solve this by UI changes now, but it will only help them so far. OOo has potential to solve it by taking the style metaphor further than MS, but still doesn't go far enough. See further below... To a certain extent I agree with this, but the long and short of it is that there is a place for both. Ever tried writing a novel in PageMaker or InDesign? It's no more fun doing that than it is to lay out a magazine in Writer or Word. There is a place for both, and I think that a DTP application is a logical next step for the OOo project, but not until the existing components (such as Base) are more or less perfected. (Most of the components are close, but some--like Base--still have issues that need to be a priority.) And Scribus, although they say they are "native" in 3 major platforms - Windows, Mac, and Linux - they have some weird dependency issues that really should be included in the installer, instead of making users download 10 different things and stick them in different places on the computer. And the Windows port is still beta. What are these dependencies? For my windows install i only needed Ghostscript. Well, yes, could be integrated into the installer. Distribution issue. I've never been satisfied with Scribus. It doesn't come close to the capabilities of more proprietary packages like InDesign, Quark, etc. It's more comparable with something like Serif PagePlus. If OOo were to ever start a DTP project, I would hope that it would aim higher than Scribus. So, back to topic: Is web creation really business for an Office Suite at current state? Look at a random business. Do they produce their web pages in Frontpage? Or do they rather have a Typo3, Contenido or whatever setup on their web servers and have someone transfer the content from Word documents to the CMS? Corporate web sites are created by web designers/developers, using web development tools. Not by Office users. (And no - Dreamweaver/GoLive and Frontpage/NVU are not the same types of program - the first are so to say the DTP applications for the web, the latter are the word processors for the web - that's why Frontpage is basically dead). Honestly, a lot of businesses do have someone in their office do their website. Should they? Well, that depends. I have s
Re: [Marketing] OOo in State government
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: Are there not ways of marshalling via the Web interested parties? MoveOn, Meet Up, etc., spring to mind There might be. We'll have to wait for the draft to be posted to the web first and confrim that it would be of use. On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Steven Shelton wrote: I'm not entirely optimistic that this bill will pass. It's mostly an election year bill designed to make a point. There are two things ... Yes. But while it is being discussed, and if it has points to our advantage, then we can use it to promote OOo. Since it is an election year, candidates are probably saying or writing things we can use for marketing. Obviously it helps if useful things make it into legislation, but anything that helps raise awareness of advantages is good, too. -Lars Lars Noodén ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) OpenOffice.org: Now ISO 26300 Standards Compliant ! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] Fwd: Suggestion for major media ads
I suggest that we cooperate with the art folks to make some proposals for paper and magazine ads in different formats with English text. These masters should of course be in ODF format so we can localize them easily. We could use the New York ad for inspiration: http://homepage.mac.com/bhorst/ We are free to use it, but I don't know were we can download it in an editable form. Anyway, I like both the layout and the text because it's simple and clean. The only thing I would like to ad is our official (and much under-used) positioner: "Open. For Business". Best regards, Finn G. Larsen Erwin Tenhumberg skrev: Have we ever done this? Yes and no. We once got an offer from a Munich-based newspaper with a circulation of 800,000 copies. Since they are/were using OpenOffice.org themselves, they wanted to give something back by printing ads for free in cases where they have free ad space. I created a few ads in different formats and over a few moths the ads got printed a few times. Erwin Benjamin Horst wrote: This suggestion came in from someone following the OOo ads project. Sounds like a great idea! Have we ever done anything like this? -Ben Begin forwarded message: From: Matthijs Dierckx - Het Redactielokaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: July 20, 2006 7:43:56 AM EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Suggestion Hi there, Just a thought: I work in the magazine publishing business and we often receive cd-roms with ads for NGO's. We use them in situations when an advertisement is cancelled 1 minute before going to print. Here in The Netherlands all non-profit organisations send such cd's to any major publishing house and see their ads appear on a quite regular basis. I don't know if this goes for other countries as well, but you could give it a try. Produce several high resolution versions of your ad, in as many formats as you can think of and off you go. Greetings, Matthijs Dierckx --het Redactielokaal t. 020 42 876 88 f. 020 42 876 93 www.redactielokaal.nl Postbus 15408 1001 MK AMSTERDAM - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] Fwd: Suggestion for major media ads
Have we ever done this? Yes and no. We once got an offer from a Munich-based newspaper with a circulation of 800,000 copies. Since they are/were using OpenOffice.org themselves, they wanted to give something back by printing ads for free in cases where they have free ad space. I created a few ads in different formats and over a few moths the ads got printed a few times. Erwin Benjamin Horst wrote: This suggestion came in from someone following the OOo ads project. Sounds like a great idea! Have we ever done anything like this? -Ben Begin forwarded message: From: Matthijs Dierckx - Het Redactielokaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: July 20, 2006 7:43:56 AM EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Suggestion Hi there, Just a thought: I work in the magazine publishing business and we often receive cd-roms with ads for NGO's. We use them in situations when an advertisement is cancelled 1 minute before going to print. Here in The Netherlands all non-profit organisations send such cd's to any major publishing house and see their ads appear on a quite regular basis. I don't know if this goes for other countries as well, but you could give it a try. Produce several high resolution versions of your ad, in as many formats as you can think of and off you go. Greetings, Matthijs Dierckx --het Redactielokaal t. 020 42 876 88 f. 020 42 876 93 www.redactielokaal.nl Postbus 15408 1001 MK AMSTERDAM - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
