> those people will have to learn how to fix that bad habit.
You realize that I'm not talking about a problem that you either have or you don't, but one that everyone has to some degree, right? Anything that's a matter of willpower, some people will have less of; and, in fact, everyone will have less of as things happen to them that deplete their willpower throughout the day. Consider the needs of "you at 4:30PM on a Friday"—they find it much harder than you do to be productive, right? Well, that's why things like distractionless editors exist. So motivated-you can make a choice (use a spartan editor) that boxes unmotivated-you into having nothing else to do but work.
> and they often end up doing a much better job too, because they're working with a tight feedback loop between the tasks.
I do agree with this. But keep in mind that you don't need any special kind of program to accomplish this. You can have your (auto-reloading-text-boxes) layout program open in one window, and your (auto-saving) composition program open in the other, maybe across two monitors. Works just as well, and—unlike a "composition with preview" style editor—the "preview" pane is instead a real WYSIWYG editor for the layout and typography, as well as showing the state of your composition.
> indesign is outdated
Yeah, true. It's better to have a format that actually produces digital-native results as well. It's (sadly) not usually feasible in large orgs, given that there are separate teams with separate skillsets that want to take one composition as input and run it through two separate (web and desktop) publishing pipelines. Even if you can align them all on the same software, attempting to do any "layout rule-sharing" is a lot like trying to get the mobile and desktop frontends of an app to share code.
> repurpose your .html
That's one (valid) approach, sure. The other one (that I personally favor) is to start with the print layout, in a desktop publishing program that happens to use a layout format that is a superset of HTML+CSS, which gives you the ability to add CSS media queries to said document to specify how it should render when exported as an ePub or as HTML.
One example of such a digital-native desktop publishing program is iBooks Author. You get a proprietary, fixed-layout "rich eBook" format from it by default; it exports to PDF at full fidelity (though you lose some TOC metadata); but it also exports to ePub and HTML.
It's honestly a shame that the EPUB 3.0 standard hasn't seen traction or gotten an equivalent authoring experience from anyone, because it's basically the same idea but not proprietary. It's a perfect "mother format" to reduce down to assets for every kind of content channel you'd care to use.
> You realize that I'm not talking about a problem that you either have or you don't, but one that everyone has to some degree, right?
i don't see it that way. i especially don't see it as
involving "willpower". i see it more as a specific skill.
now, as i said quite clearly, some people lack the skill.
and some of those people will be totally unable to learn it.
the most unfortunate ones should adopt your 2-stage workflow.
but most people can learn to drop the procrastination habit
and pick up the skill of simultaneous writing and layout.
plus, on the other side, some people thrive on that method.
not just do they not "have a problem" with it, to any degree,
but they actually perform better when they work in that way.
> It's (sadly) not usually feasible in large orgs, given that there are separate teams with separate skillsets
i agree that such organizations won't change their workflow.
but i'm not really all that interested in empowering _them_.
> iBooks Author
> It's honestly a shame that the EPUB 3.0 standard
it's much better if i don't get started on either of those topics... :+)
You realize that I'm not talking about a problem that you either have or you don't, but one that everyone has to some degree, right? Anything that's a matter of willpower, some people will have less of; and, in fact, everyone will have less of as things happen to them that deplete their willpower throughout the day. Consider the needs of "you at 4:30PM on a Friday"—they find it much harder than you do to be productive, right? Well, that's why things like distractionless editors exist. So motivated-you can make a choice (use a spartan editor) that boxes unmotivated-you into having nothing else to do but work.
> and they often end up doing a much better job too, because they're working with a tight feedback loop between the tasks.
I do agree with this. But keep in mind that you don't need any special kind of program to accomplish this. You can have your (auto-reloading-text-boxes) layout program open in one window, and your (auto-saving) composition program open in the other, maybe across two monitors. Works just as well, and—unlike a "composition with preview" style editor—the "preview" pane is instead a real WYSIWYG editor for the layout and typography, as well as showing the state of your composition.
> indesign is outdated
Yeah, true. It's better to have a format that actually produces digital-native results as well. It's (sadly) not usually feasible in large orgs, given that there are separate teams with separate skillsets that want to take one composition as input and run it through two separate (web and desktop) publishing pipelines. Even if you can align them all on the same software, attempting to do any "layout rule-sharing" is a lot like trying to get the mobile and desktop frontends of an app to share code.
> repurpose your .html
That's one (valid) approach, sure. The other one (that I personally favor) is to start with the print layout, in a desktop publishing program that happens to use a layout format that is a superset of HTML+CSS, which gives you the ability to add CSS media queries to said document to specify how it should render when exported as an ePub or as HTML.
One example of such a digital-native desktop publishing program is iBooks Author. You get a proprietary, fixed-layout "rich eBook" format from it by default; it exports to PDF at full fidelity (though you lose some TOC metadata); but it also exports to ePub and HTML.
It's honestly a shame that the EPUB 3.0 standard hasn't seen traction or gotten an equivalent authoring experience from anyone, because it's basically the same idea but not proprietary. It's a perfect "mother format" to reduce down to assets for every kind of content channel you'd care to use.