[evergreen-outreach] annual report printing

Fri Jan 5 12:21:24 EST 2018

I agree that increasing the printed size of the annual report by a quarter
of an inch for an added cost of $250 (am I reading that right?) is
definitely not worth it, won't hardly make any difference.  I would
advocate for any text size increases possible within the constraints of the
current configuration, even 10% bigger rather than the 25% that seems
problematic.

I looked over the Google doc, nothing to add at this point.  I'm willing to
help with proofreading when the time comes.

Thanks,
Ron

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Ruth Frasur <director at hagerstownlibrary.org>
wrote:

> Just my two cents into this...
>
> First of all, thank you...continually...to Rogan and Kathy for your
> extensive work on the annual report.  I like the idea of moving away from
> expensive, proprietary tools to open source ones when possible.  That's
> "when possible" is a big statement.  I think, if Rogan feels confident
> (reasonably) with the proposed worse case timeline, it'd be a worthy thing
> for Kathy to look at migrating to Scribus.
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.hamby at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that's not too bad of an indicator.  Different dev communities have
>> different expectations of the dev version.  How did the bitmaps import /
>> link?  Did you do any tests of PDF export yet?
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, well, that's why I mentioned 'pitfalls' in the 2nd option because
>>> I'm more concerned about them happening with a development version than the
>>> stable branch. Here is how their development community describes the
>>> release:
>>>
>>> As of version 1.5.1, we consider the development branch reasonably
>>> stable, so it can be used for serious work by users who accept that not all
>>>  *new*features are already working perfectly. Features already
>>> available in the officially stable version will work *much* better in
>>> 1.5.1+, though.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing idml support is one of the new features, but if importing
>>> IDML files is one of the potential issues, I assume it would pop up as a
>>> problem early on.
>>>
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> On 01/03/2018 12:44 PM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
>>>
>>> I have some concerns about using a development version.  Do you have a
>>> sense of how stable it's considered to be?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for sending this along Rogan. I finally had a chance to look at
>>>> using Scribus with Rogan's files today. The development version of Scribus
>>>> (1.5.3) seems to handle idml file whereas the older, 1.4.x version of
>>>> Scribus did not. The file does not import perfectly: fonts needed to be
>>>> changed and we would need to adjust some of the layout, but I think I could
>>>> turn it into something workable.
>>>>
>>>> There are two issues to consider then:
>>>>
>>>> - The original reason this topic arose was because of concerns that the
>>>> font size was small, making it difficult to read the annual report. Last
>>>> year's report is available at https://evergreen-ils.org/wp-c
>>>> ontent/uploads/2017/03/Evergreen-Annual-Report-2016-Print-Version.pdf
>>>> if anyone wants to look at it for context. This could be addressed by
>>>> increasing the font size in the current layout, which will necessarily
>>>> reduce the amount of content we can include, or by switching to a larger
>>>> booklet. However, the issue with switching to the larger booklet, as Rogan
>>>> noted below, is that it requires a lot of labor time. Rogan has already put
>>>> in hours to create the current layout, and time is valuable.
>>>>
>>>> - The other issue is that the current report is done in Adobe InDesign,
>>>> which, due to cost and OS support, is not available to most of us. This
>>>> means that the work of creating the annual report always falls on Rogan's
>>>> shoulders. By creating it in Scribus, which is open source, we might be
>>>> able to divide up the work so that two or three of us are helping to put
>>>> the report together. Even if we didn't change the layout of the report, it
>>>> might not be a bad idea to consider this change so that we can divide and
>>>> conquer.
>>>>
>>>> We have a few options.
>>>>
>>>> - We could decide to go with the current format (with or without font
>>>> size changes) for this year and look at moving to Scribus for next year's
>>>> report. If we start the work in the spring, it gives us time to
>>>> troubleshoot any issues in time for the 2018 report.
>>>>
>>>> - I would be willing to commit to working on transferring the file to
>>>> Scribus and the larger size before the February meeting. This would give
>>>> us  layout to work with over February as we plug in the content. However, I
>>>> can't guarantee that I won't find pitfalls along the way. If the pitfalls
>>>> are too large, we would need to go back to the InDesign booklet, which
>>>> would give Rogan less time to work on this year's report on his own
>>>>
>>>> - We could also decide to keep things as they are for now as it has
>>>> been successful in generating a nice annual report.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are other options we can discuss during today's meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Rogan for all of your work on this!
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2017 07:47 AM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another quick follow up.  In looking at moving the work on the annual
>>>> report to Scribus Kathy and I both did some research on migrating the file
>>>> format.  My experience has been that the print layout world of software is
>>>> fundamentally different in terms of exchanging data between applications
>>>> then graphics and this is bearing out to be true.  Both of us found the
>>>> same set of suggestions and neither are working for me in a way that would
>>>> be useful.  The postscript export is per page not document and does not
>>>> export embedded data.  The xml output is not parseable.  I'm still waiting
>>>> to see if Kathy had any better luck but at this point that does not look
>>>> like a viable option to me.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.hamby at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Good morning,
>>>>>
>>>>> There has been a little discussion off list about printing of the
>>>>> annual report.  Last year we printed 250 saddle stitched trimmed to bleed
>>>>> with a cover at 8.25x 5.75 with 100# gloss at full color.  Terri, at
>>>>> Equinox, was kind enough to get me an updated quote for this year from the
>>>>> same printer we used last year and an estimate for increasing the book
>>>>> size.  The reason for the increase in the book size is that there have been
>>>>> questions about increasing the font size of the report without decreasing
>>>>> the amount of content.  The only way to do that is to increase the paper
>>>>> size.
>>>>>
>>>>> A new printing at last year's specifications is $985.55
>>>>>
>>>>> Increasing the paper size to 8.5 x 6 (which is a very small increase)
>>>>> jumps to $1,228.60.  The cost has to be considered of course but it's not
>>>>> my greatest concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I'm very sympathetic to the access issues it's necessary to
>>>>> point out that we have attempted to keep labor time under some constraints
>>>>> by reusing the same basic layout.  Print layout software isn't quite like
>>>>> responsive web design and you can't just tell it a new paper size and have
>>>>> everything re-adjust.  If we do go the route of a new paper size we need to
>>>>> finalize this very soon and it will be a great deal of labor to implement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to make it clear I am _not_ in favor of doing this.  We produce a
>>>>> web friendly PDF so that it can easily be scaled and a limited print run
>>>>> for the conference.  We can certainly increase font sizes an average 25%
>>>>> but I don't think it will make for an attractive product.  However, I would
>>>>> much rather do that than change the printed format of the report.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> evergreen-outreach mailing listevergreen-outreach at list.evergreen-ils.orghttp://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-outreach
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Kathy Lussier
>>>> Project Coordinator
>>>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> evergreen-outreach mailing list
>>>> evergreen-outreach at list.evergreen-ils.org
>>>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everg
>>>> reen-outreach
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kathy Lussier
>>> Project Coordinator
>>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> evergreen-outreach mailing list
>> evergreen-outreach at list.evergreen-ils.org
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-outreach
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ruth Frasur
> Director of the Historic(ally Awesome) Hagerstown - Jefferson Township
> Library
> 10 W. College Street in Hagerstown, Indiana (47346)
> p (765) 489-5632; f (765) 489-5808
>
> *Our Kickin' Website <http://hagerstownlibrary.org>,  Our Rockin' Facebook
> Page <http://facebook.com/hjtplibrary>,  and The Nettle Creek Players
> <http://nettlecreekplayers.com>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> evergreen-outreach mailing list
> evergreen-outreach at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-outreach
>
>

-- 
Ronald A. Gagnon
Executive Director
North Of Boston Library Exchange (NOBLE)
Danvers, Massachusetts  01923
978-777-8844
www.noblenet.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-outreach/attachments/20180105/8cec6192/attachment-0001.html>