![]() Whenever I implement InCopy, I remind people that it’s a great time to evaluate the existing workflow to determine whether a change might make sense to improve overall efficiency. Part of making the decision between replacing Word with InCopy or incorporating Word into some portion of your workflow is to evaluate the overall workflow. First, it can provide some visual representation of what the content will look like in the final product, and secondly it can facilitate the text formatting when imported into InCopy or InDesign. To make the most of this process, you can set up a Word template that is provided to authors for submitting articles that contain Styles that can be used for general formatting of text. Or depending on your workflow, it can be imported directly into InDesign. Once final edits have been made, the Word content can be imported into InCopy, saved as a story, and passed on to design. Typically authors will write the content in Word and that content will remain in Word during the back-and-forth exchange between the author and the editor. Think of articles that are being submitted by various authors to a magazine. In cases like these, it makes perfect sense to use Word in some portion of your workflow. As someone once told me, “You can’t make Pete Rose write his biography in InCopy.” In cases like these it’s difficult for InCopy to be used because there is a training component as well as a software purchase component involved which for numerous reasons, might not be feasible. In certain environments, freelance authors and editors are used throughout the process. This requires a little bit of explanation. If the editorial staff (writers, editors, copy editors, etc.) or more accurately some of the editorial staff (namely writers) do not work directly for your organization, then it’s a little more difficult and in some cases undesirable to replace Microsoft Word with Adobe InCopy. When InCopy Cannot Replace Microsoft Word The reason that this environment facilitates the use of InCopy is because it can be controlled more easily and it’s easier to deploy InCopy to all necessary parties. In an environment such as this, InCopy offers all of the features necessary for editorial staff to perform their jobs and streamlines the workflow considerably by allowing concurrent editing of content, efficient application of styles, and much more. That’s not to throw Word under the bus at all, it was never designed to fill the need that we often try to make it achieve. Applying styles, accurate color, and even kerning and tracking being only a few of those features. ![]() ![]() ![]() After all, Microsoft Word although powerful as a Word Processing application, lacks a lot of features that InCopy brings to the table. If the editorial staff (writers, editors, copy editors, etc.) work directly for your organization, then there’s a good chance that InCopy can in fact become a replacement for Microsoft Word in your workflow. It’s a good thing too, because although I can categorize the workflow for most organizations into a certain type of workflow, each organization brings their own nuances to the table requiring a tweak or modification to the “standard” InCopy workflow. One of the things that I’ve always loved about Adobe InCopy is that there’s no ONE way to use the product. InCopy can in fact be a replacement for Word in some workflows but it can also be used as an enhancement to many workflows. Truth be told, I often hear people describe InCopy as a replacement for Word. Whenever I explain the concept of InCopy to new users, I’m often asked if InCopy replaces Microsoft Word in an InCopy Workflow.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |