I went to a seminar where QR codes were also on the agenda. I must admit that some of examples shown that went beyond the simple 'click here to go to a web site' were pretty interesting. Scan the code on a poster to add the concert to your agenda - kinda neat! The presenter didn't show any tombstone codes - I guess those are old hat by now.

I recently ran into a former colleague who became production manager at a publisher of fine art books. One of his main tasks was doing press checks for such publications. He told me the company had been acquired some time ago and that the new owners didn't think press checks were that important. I guess that is a trend as I've heard this from others as well. Out of curiosity I've put a poll about this on prepressure.com. Any thoughts on this? Is there a decline? Is it justified?

We were having a discussion at work about InDesign plug-ins and their behavior. Someone mentioned the QuarkXPress Pasteboard xtension - that xtension that added some data to each file, forcing a user who wanted to open a document to either have that xtension installed or use another xtension to remove those Pasteboard specific data. Still makes me cringe when I think about it....

Anyway - we were wondering if the same also exists in InDesign - plug-ins that force a user on another computer to have the plug-in installed as well because otherwise you cannot open the file or print it or use some other general InDesign function?

I use DropBox for private stuff as well and love the way many iPad apps support it.

Suppose you get PDF files supplied for a magazine with separate files for each page. If the cover has a foldout, how would you want to get that file? With the cover page as a single larger page that includes the foldout? With the foldout as a separate page, set to the trim size? With the foldout as a separate page, with the same dimensions as all the other pages - so you can trim in imposition? Is there a particular naming convention you would prefer for a separate foldout page?

I have in the past seen all of the above variations and had Apogee cope with them. Now I am working on the creation side of things and wonder what would suit printers the best. Any preference and any reason for that preference?

I've been playing around with Typefaces, an app that shows all the fonts that are included with the iPad. Excellent news for all of you who love bashing 'real' desingers: the iPad ships without Comic Sans! You cannot even install it!

If that doesn't warrant an immediate purchase of 10 iPads, I don't know what will   :grin:

The iPad looks as if it is a big iPhone/iPod Touch, with the same way of accessing apps and the same type of controls. It is much more of a computer than the iPhone or iPod Touch are... but it is held back by inheriting its smaller cousin's operating system. You have a 1 Ghz CPU and up to 64 GB of storage but no way to see stored data or open a file with a specific app. Simple things like adding fonts or hooking up a DVD drive are impossible.

Apple is probably right in not wanting 4 operating systems: one for iPhone & iPod, one for the iPad, one for the Apple TV and one for the Macs. Unfortunately the price for simplicity is that the iPad ends up being limited as a computer by its iPhone style UI. Even so, it remains a remarkable machine and the only workable one of its kind. It cannot do some basic stuff but is so much better at a lot of things than a portable or desktop machine will ever be.

OK, I'll be the first one to admit that I bought one.

In a way the iPad reminds me of the original Mac, something that comes along and gets ridiculed a lot but ultimately turns out to change the entire industry. I just finished reading my first book on it as well as enjoying the digital version of Wired magazine. Every morning it brings me my newspaper. None of that is good news for print but then again print will survive and those who adapt will keep having a job (at least that is what I am betting on).

First impressions can be found on my site

Quote from: gnubler on July 18, 2010, 09:50:58 AMI'm one of those wild childs who uses applications for exactly what they were designed for. InDesign is a page layout app for print material and nothing more. The more Adobe tries to stuff into InDesign, the worse it's going to get. Why can't they keep it simple?

Because you can never sell upgrades for something that is simple, does just one thing and works well?

On the one hand I understand your point of view but at the same time it feels a bit wrong that a design app shouldn't offer the possibility of exporting a Flash-based flipbook, a feature that a lot of people have been asking for. The same is true for iPad/tablet optimized versions of publications. Doesn't it sound silly to first create a layout for print and then have to start completely from scratch to do the same for a somewhat but not radically different type of output?

It is a thin line that Adobe are walking: bloat versus versatility. I hope they don't screw up. Some may argue that they already have.

Meanwhile I've closed the poll. The results can be viewed here. As could be expected Acrobat is pretty popular and PitStop is the most used plug-in for editing PDF files.

Every time I go to one of Adobe's road shows, they demonstrate how InDesign can be used for more than just print publications. Since I am quite fond of Indy (and admittedly hate MS Word and PowerPoint), I also use it for creating on-screen presentations and manuals. I do wonder however how many people regularly export InDesign content to Dreamweaver. Adobe's attempts to convince us that InDesign is a great authoring tool for Flash content also leave me scratching my head. It all looks fine with the well-prepared sample files used during those seminars but how many people actually work this way?

Since I am curious about this, I've put up a poll at Prepressure.com. Votes are appreciated as are your thoughts about using InDesign for multi-channel publishing.

The hate is strong in this one.

I recently got asked if there is a tool that allows you to use Photoshop-alike curves to color correct PDFs. Some uses: give the general curve an S-shape to add a bit of punch to all the images, pull 5% out of the cyan channel or once again use the main channel to add a compensation for dot gain. It seems so obvious that such a simple level editing tool should exist but I haven't seen one yet, not as a stand-alone app nor as an Acrobat plug-in. Does it exist?

Quote from: mattbeals on June 11, 2010, 08:09:36 PMYou neglected to add Callas pdfToolbox to the list.

Added - thanks for pointing it out. It is odd that I forgot pdfToolbox even though I meet some of the Callas people from time to time. Real PDF gurus!

A recent poll here about using Illustrator to edit PDF files inspired me to put up a poll about everyone's favorite PDF editing tools. Even though nobody recommends it, editing PDFs seems to happen quite a lot. My page on how to edit PDF files is the second most popular page on the site with around 1000 daily page views!

The poll will probably be a home run for Adobe Acrobat. I am curious though how many also vote for other tools - or indeed use Adobe Illustrator. Please cast your vote(s) and use this thread to share your PDF-editing wisdom and/or nightmare stories.