From: Michael Brady <bradydesign-AT-embarqmail.com>
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:58:57 UTC   (07:58:57 PM in author's locale)
To: InDesign Talk <indesign-AT-lists.lassosoft.com>

I just picked up the sample copy of a book I designed. It's 7x10. My first reaction was "Ooh, a little bigger than I figured." But it's okay. I'm not going to reject it.

But it reminded me of a odd disconnect when doing electronic layouts compared to old paste-ups that started out with pencil roughs on tracing paper. Back in the day, everything was 100%, except thumbnails. If you wanted to see details, you just moved closer to the board; if you wanted to see the full spread, you pushed you chair back a bit.

I don't have that same gut sense of the actual size of layouts anymore.

I've found that with the ability to scale up layouts to 3600% or zoom out to 6%, I've lost the sense of what the actual size of the piece really is. And it's exacerbated by the fact that when I move the layout window from my 20" main monitor (1680 x 1050 pixels) to my 19" secondary monitor (1440 x 900), the on-screen size jumps just by switching monitors.

Also, selecting "100%" or "actual size" for the view setting doesn't give you a layout that is accurately 100% (because the display in the program is independent of the dot pitch of the monitor, and so it's rendered on screen at different actual dimensions)

My point: When I use the computer, my basic, tactile, almost visceral connection to the natural size of the layout is virtually nonexistent, almost completely atrophied.

Does this sound familiar?

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
_______________________________________________
Graphics mailing list
Graphics-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
mail.nothingness.org/mailman/listinfo/graphics