[FM Discuss] a crazy moment pondering a manifesto

[Daniel James]

Hi Helen,

> i don't think we need to limit ourselves to names/titles/roles that
> already exist - isn't the whole point of it that we are doing something
> new/different to traditional modes of book production, therefore
> new/different ways to name & describe it are completely valid :)

Yes, you're absolutely right, but the new name has to be accurate, and
should be a logical progression from existing roles (so as not to
confuse or alarm people).

If we use names that are similar to other roles (such as software
developer) people might assume that you need to be a developer to create
a book this way, which would not be true. In my view, calling yourself
an 'e-book developer' is misleading unless you are developing some
custom interactive features.

There is a danger that this model is perceived as a threat to authors
and publishers, but actually I see nothing but benefit for those people.
The biggest losers I forsee are:

1. Microsoft. Word sucks for writing books, not least because of file
format problems over time, and the lack of typographical control
exposing its general-purpose-office-tool heritage.

2. Adobe. You no longer need InDesign to manually lay out a book or
generate a PDF (thank goodness, it's very tedious work).

3. Typesetters trained on a workflow using the two products above, who
don't want to retrain or learn CSS. Because of the typical division of
labour, those people may have little experience of writing or editing
which they can bring to the new model.

'Book sprint facilitator' is a good description of what that person
does. 'Book producer' might work, since it is somewhat analogous to
'Movie producer' or 'Music producer' roles. In music, the producer is
often also the hands-on director, in a facilitating role but also
leading the project.

Cheers!

Daniel