## In-Browser Design

The page is changing in so many ways – time-based media is making its way into book pages, reactive content, scrollable space, and a multitude of differing display devices make designing pages pretty hard work these days. How to design for so many possibilities? How to understand so many possibilities?

Craig Mod of flipboard makes a very compelling argument for two forms of page : formless and definite content in an article he wrote for Book: A Futurists Manifesto – the first book to be produced by PressBooks. Craig’s argument, in a nutshell and in his own words is:

the key difference between Formless and Definite Content is the interaction between the content and the page. Formless Content doesn’t see the page or its boundaries; Definite Content is not only aware of the page, but embraces it. It edits, shifts, and resizes itself to fit the page [...] Put very simply, Formless Content is unaware of the container. Definite Content embraces the container as a canvas.

Craig argues that most book content we know is formless – the text can reflow into other containers without affecting the meaning. This position is in tension to the thinking of most book designers today. Designers of paper books design contained space and desktop publishing applications are built to manage pixel-perfect manipulation within a strictly defined and known container. If the finished digital article does not exactly co-relate to the printed artefact then something went wrong; it is assumed that either the designer, or the tool, has done a bad job.

Those familiar with this kind of process are uneasy with designing formless content – how can you design a page when you do not know its container? It is literally like asking a book designer to design a book without telling them the page dimensions. Web designers, on the other hand, have been thinking about page design too, and they have for a long time, at least in part, been designing for formless content.

The design of formless content is really a partially-formless, partially-constrained design process since elements within the page have some kind of relationship to each other, and they can have relationships to characteristics of a page, such as top or top left, for example. These relationships are defined by rules, the same rules I have discussed previously – CSS aka Cascading Style Sheets. Relationships can be articulated with CSS which will be preserved when displayed in different contexts. The meaning is preserved by the relationship between the elements and page features more than by their relationship to the the exact x,y position of a page with a specific dimension, although strict placement is possible. This is the job of Cascading Style Sheets – the design language of the web. It is rule-based design with some conditional arguments and it is the method for designing electronic books; it will become, increasingly, the technology for describing the layout and design of paper-based print.

All of this can be manipulated in the browser. In fact, the browser is the best place to design flowable text since it is the flowable type environment of our time and, as mentioned before, the browser (Webkit) is the background technology for many e-readers. We have not yet seen the development of very good flowable design environments in the browser, but that is changing. The closest we have seen so far are the ‘in-browser’ design environments that some internet service providers make available for their customers to ‘design their own website online!’ While actually quite powerful, these environments are generally horrible to use, but this practice is applicable to the design of ebooks.

The desktop publishing world is not taking this lying down, and Adobe, in particular, has been pursuing what they call “Adaptive Design Tools” for the production of ‘liquid content’. Liquid content is flowable content, content that can rescale and position itself to fit the container. Adobe’s tools are intended for content targeted for mobile devices and tablets, although they also identify a role for it in print production. Adobe’s yet-to-be-released Adobe Edge is the product targeted at this flowable design process and their background technology for this design environment is – Webkit, the same browser mentioned earlier. Webkit is the ‘design surface’ for the new generation of desktop design tools coming from established publishing technology providers.

Coming back to the paper book. Until recently it has been extremely difficult to generate a PDF that exactly co-relates to what you see in a browser. Until now the browser accessed the PDF-creation features of the operating system. Hence a PDF from the same browser would look different if that browser were running in Windows, Mac or Linux. Just recently this has changed and the browser itself is now making the PDF. Chrome has been pioneering this ‘Native PDF’ output from the browser and the output looks exactly as you see it in the browser. One to one co-relation of content in the browser to the content in the PDF is a breaking point which points the way to designing your paper book in a browser. We are getting to the point where you can use a browser just as you would a desktop publishing application to design paper books.

The browser can now play every part of the book production process except the actual printing (although from the browser you can upload PDF to print-on-demand services such as Lulu.com).

What this means is that you can write a book in the browser, while at the same time it is being proofed and edited, and designed. Each part of this formerly-linear production cycle can now become synchronous. You can now write, edit, proof, design the book ‘in the book’.

## Collaboration and Book Production

Collaboration on a book is the ultimate unnatural act. —Tom Clancy

The emergence of online book production tools is, of course, bringing writers online. Authoring books online seems to bring two apparently opposing dynamics into play – the social web and the author. The production in the context of the increasingly noisy, social web seems at odds with the typical conception of solitary writer and the juxtaposition simultaneously brings into focus the potential for collaboration or ‘social production’ together with questions of authorship.

The modern discourse around book authorship began in 1969 when Michel Foucault asked, What is an Author? he  drew attention to a shift in the definition of an “author’s” role that represented a “privileged moment of individualisation in the history of ideas, knowledge, literature, philosophy, and the sciences” ([Foucault 2002]). Scholars and theorists of various academic disciplines have spent the last thirty years responding to Foucault in what has grown into a vibrant intellectual discourse on authorship. We need to enter this debate to discover what might lie ahead for online book production.

One of the foremost participants in this discussion is Martha Woodmansee, who notes [Woodmansee 1992] that the modern concept of author is rooted in the Romantic notion that significant writers, “break altogether with tradition to create something utterly new, unique—in a word, ‘original.’” As Benjamin Mako further discusses [Mako, 1995], this popular belief in an author’s primary, even exclusive, role in the creation of a text, is referred to as Romantic authorship and before the rise, and eventual dominance of this notion, writing gained value from its creative affiliation with existing works, or what Martha Woodmansee describes as “its derivation, rather than its deviation from prior texts” [Woodmansee 1994]. Before this important shift, the authorial role was often compared to that of a commentator, compiler, or transcriber. Woodmansee references a definition by the thirteenth century St. Bonaventure who describes an author as one who “wrote both with his own work and others’ but with his own work in the principle place adding others’ for purposes of confirmation” [Woodmansee 1994] . This thirteenth-century definition of authorship places literary creation squarely within the context of collaboration.

In this time, through the support of author honoraria, the constant production of new work was insured without the need for system of intellectual property or ownership. This arrangement was essential as the dominant models of literary creation were fundamentally intertwined with borrowing and collaboration.

Prompted by the rise of copyright in Britain in 1709, the eighteenth century introduced a new concept of individualised authorship based on the idea of a creative genius working alone. This idea—one at odds with collaborative, collective, or corporate creation—has remained widely influential despite powerful arguments made by theorists like Foucault and Woodmansee and a growing body of evidence that collaborative and collective creation is more effective than individual work.

At its birth, copyright was lobbied for and designed to benefit publishers alone. For at least the first century of its institution, authors continued to write in the ways they had before. They borrowed as they had before; they collaborated as they had before; they plagiarised as they had before. Collaboration in the forms popularised before the institution of copyright remained popular. However, by selling the rights to their ideas, authors were presented with a new system of compensation for their work: a way to “live by their pen.” They realised that by solidifying their access to these rights, they might insure their ability to make a living. This coincided, and was intimately connected, with the explosive growth of the publishing industry in Europe. Authors felt they needed to insure compensation for their intellectual productions and saw their copyright, described in the Statute of Anne and similar acts in other countries, as an available method for achieving this goal.

This is not to imply that collective authorship is not possible today, however, joint authorship operates in an environment hostile to collaborative work, and, as a result, is difficult at best. Under current systems of literary production defined by copyright and Romantic conceptions of authorship, writers have few other options. By emphasizing ownership and control as the primary, and in most cases the only, method of compensation for literary work, meaningful collaboration becomes difficult in all cases and impossible in most. Rather than borrow and work together, authors will work alone. Rather than borrow an idea, passage or theme from another novel and risk a copyright suit, authors are more likely to not include the theme or passage at all. The fact that joint-authorship and collaboration can function at all in this hostile environment, is testament to the power and of collaboration. Without a strong system of control shaping the landscape of literary creation, it is very likely our idea of how books are made would be very different and collaboration would play a central, valued, role.

Licences such as these are important as legal mechanisms for opening up the opportunities for the reuse of content, however they are also an essential environment for collaborative production. The whole process just becomes more fluid. There is no need to sign ‘work for hire’ or other legal agreements to enable collaborative relationships, one can simply get on with the job. Free licenses provide a legal framework which is not, in itself, hostile to collaboration and from that position we can look at single authorship as a choice, not a given.

However, we must recognise that 300 years of copyright and a long era of Romantic authorship has left us with inadequate tools for engaging in the collaborative process. It is difficult to get beyond our deeply internalised ideas of book production, and we find ourselves unwilling to leave behind the romantic notion of authorship, as it is, well, romantic and very enticing. Collaboration, on the other hand, is difficult to imagine and, we should not forget, it has an army of derisionists like Tom Clancy, not to mention the academic and commercial publishing worlds, that are invested in devaluing it. Can books really be produced collaboratively and what does the process offer? It is difficult for many of us to answer these basic questions whereas we feel we understand the value and the offer of sole authorship.

In order to ease into the question, it is perhaps worth avoiding the word ‘author’ to describe the book production process. Instead of talking about the author, or even multiple authorship, let’s forget the word all together and reframe it in another way. I propose we instead think about strong and weak collaboration.

It is evident that the books you see in the book stores in your town are not produced by one person alone. Let’s imagine that someone did, in fact, write the entire book and it was untouched by an editor’s hand – we can at least accept that the sole writer did not design the book or the cover or take the entire bundle to the printer to be produced. There may be some cases where this has happened, certainly in the self-publising world this is not uncommon, but thinking for now about the established publishing industry. That book by Tom Clancy had at least some one, or more, involved in the process unless Tom is hiding his desktop publishing talents from us.

However, let’s just limit our focus to possible collaborative relationships which effect the actual text. There is practically no book that goes through the publishing process entirely intact. At some point, someone put in their hand to make an improvement, even if small. Did Tom do a thorough grammar check? Any proofreading or editorial comments before printing?

I would characterise this kind of interaction with the text as minimal or weak collaboration. More than one hand was at play to make that exact text which appears in the book: this was a collaborative effort, albeit an extremely weak one.

Moving up the scale. Where a writer and an editor might interact often regarding the text as it is being produced, the editor offering suggestions for improvement, or editing the text directly, this could be characterised as having a stronger collaborative nature than the previous example.

Stronger still is a relationship of two or more writers working very closely together to produce a text. This is evident in any number of ‘single author’ classics such as Frankenstein, which is attributed to Mary Shelley although we know now that Percy Shelly had a strong hand in some of the text, or The Wasteland, which has been discussed by many as a case in point where T.S Eliot collaborated closely with both Vivienne Elliot and Ezra Pound in its production.

Lastly, at the far end of the scale, we have intense collaboration where the delineation between ‘who wrote what’ disappears even to the collaborators themselves as they are producing the text.

As it happens, most books feature not just collaboration but intense collaboration between writer and editor.

As Valerie Peterson warns, “Once you sign a contract with a book publisher, you’re essentially in partnership to create “the book,” and you both have a say in the end-product. From trimming the fat of your language (akin to “killing your babies”) to altering the logical flow of the chapters, your book editor will have much to say about how your text will look in print. While your editor is there to make the book (and you!) sound better–and a thoughtful, skilled editor absolutely will do that–you two may not always agree on what’s best for the finished book. If you’re going to publish, it’s good to be prepared for some “creative differences.”

An  editor may be so esteemed by writers wanting to be published that they choose publishers, where possible, by the esteem they have for the editor involved. A wonderful example of this is found in How a Book is Born: The Making of The Art of Fielding by Graydon Carter and Keith Gessen. Choosing a publisher is to choose an editor, which in turn is really choosing a collaborative partner.

If we allow ourselves to do away with the notion of authorship and instead characterise the interactions on a collaborative spectrum we can see that collaboration already plays an important role in a ‘typical’ process, and it has more value than we may have first thought. Book production is actually a collaborative process and quite an intense one. The publishing world has hidden this from view because of the reasons discussed above but we should not be fooled into believing that creating a book involves Romantic authorship. Collaboration is a technique we use to improve all books, and we should bring it into focus and explore it.

The advantage of producing books online is that we have an enormous scope of collaborative activity available to us. Until now, exploration of the possibilities has largely been limited because of our investment in myths of authorship but if we discard this notion we can explore the opportunities the web offers. The good thing about the net is that ‘the door’ can be regulated depending on the production needs. We may wish to fling the door wide and invite anyone to come in and work on a text, or we may shut the door completely and work in isolation. We may need to, for example, remain in a weak collaborative position for quite some time as we flesh out a work. Later, when we ask for feedback we move slightly up the scale, and later still when the first manuscript is in the hands of an editor we move up the scale to quite strong collaboration. The point is, we have the choice, and much more choice than we had before.

With thanks to Benjamin Mako Hill for asynchronous inspiration and collaboration on this text. Many thanks also to Rachel O’Reilly for improving this post.

This version expanded from  http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/12/changing-the-culture-of-production.html  (11 December 2012)

## WYSIWYG vs WYSI

HTML is the new paper and the new path to paper online editing environments are becoming much more important for publishing. Dominant until now has been the WYSIWYG editor we all know and…err…love? However, the current WYSIWYG paradigm has been inadequate for a long time and we need to update and replace it. Producing text with a WYSIWYG editor feels like trying to write a letter while it’s still in the envelope. Let’s face it…these kinds of online text editors are not an extension of yourself, they are a cumbersome hindrance to getting a job done.

Apart from huge user experience issues the WYSIWYG editor has some big technical issues. Starting with the fact that the WYSIWYG editor is not ‘part of the page’ it is instead its own internally nested world. In essence, it is an emulator that, through Javascript, ‘reproduces’ HTML. As a walled/emulated garden, it is hard to operate on the objects in the garden using standard Javascript libraries and CSS. All interactions must be mediated by the editor. The ‘walled garden’ has little to do with the rest of the page – it offers a window through which you can edit text, but it does not offer you the ability to act on other objects on the page or have other objects act on it.

Thankfully a new era of editors is here and maturing fast. Still in search of a clearly embraced category name they are sometimes called ‘inline editors’ or HTML5 editors. This new generation takes a large step forward because they enable the user to act on the elements in the page directly through the HTML5 ‘contenteditable’ attribute. That allows ‘the page’ to be the editing environment which in turn opens up the possibility for the content to be represented in a variety of forms/views. By changing the CSS of the page, for example, we can have the same editable content shown as multi-column (useful for newspaper layout), as a ‘Google docs type’ clean editing interface, in a semantic view for highlighting paragraphs and other structural elements (important for academics), as well as other possibilities….

Additionally, it is possible to apply other javascript libraries to the page including annotation software such as AnnotateIt or typographical libraries such as kern.js. This opens up an enormous amount of possibilities for any use case to be extended by custom or existing third-party JavaScript libraries.

It is also possible to consider creating CSS snippets and apply them dynamically using the editor. This in effect turns the editor into a design interface which will open the path for in-browser design of various media including, importantly, ebooks and paper books.

There are various attempts at the HTML5 editor, which might also be called a ‘WYSI’ (‘What you see is‘) editor. The most successful are Mercury, Aloha and the recent fork of Aloha called ‘WYSIWHAT‘.

Each of these is treading their own path but things are really opening up. As an example, and with reference to the last post I made about math in browsers, the WYSIWHAT group is making some giant strides in equation editing. Their equation plugin which was first built by Mihai Billy Balaceanu at the September WYSIWHAT hack meet in Berlin has since been improved and extended by the Connexions team and the good people at OERPUB (including the talented trio of Phil Schatz, Kathi Fletcher and Marvin Reimer). The plugin was made by including MathJax in the page and allowing the editor to interact with that. This was not easily possible with previous WYSIWYG editors.

The progress on the equation front is looking very good but what this shows more than anything is that by using WYSI editors the entire page is available for interaction by the user or JavaScript. Anything you can think of that JavaScript can do you can bring to the editing environment, and that is quite a lot…

Published on O’Reilly, 3 December 2012 http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/12/wysiwyg-vs-wysi.html

## Math Typesetting

Typesetting math in HTML was for a long time one of those ‘I can’t believe this hasn’t been solved by now!’ issues. It seemed a bit wrong – wasn’t the Internet more or less invented by math geeks? Did they give up using the web back in 1996 because it didn’t support math? (That would explain the aesthetic of many ‘home pages’ for math professors.)

MathML is the W3C-recommended standard markup for equations – it’s like ‘HTML tags for math.’ While MathML has a long history and has been established in XML workflows for quite some time, it was only with HTML5 that mathematics finally entered the web as a first-class citizen. This will hopefully lead to some interesting developments as more users explore MathML and actually use it as creatively as they’ve used ‘plain’ text.

However, the support in browsers has been sketchy. Internet Explorer does not support MathML natively, Opera only supports a subset, and Konqueror does not support it. Webkit’s partial support only recently made it into Chrome 24 and was held back on Safari due to a font bug. Firefox wins the math geek trophy hands down with early (since FF 3) and best (though not yet complete) support for MathML.

### What’s the hold-up?

It seems that equation support is underwhelmingly resourced in the browser development world. Webkit’s great improvements this year (including a complete re-write + the effort to get it through Chrome’s code review) have been due to a single volunteer, Dave Barton. Frédéric Wang plays the same heroic (and unpaid) role for Firefox. The question is: why is this critical feature being left to part-time voluntary developers? aren’t there enough people and organisations out there that would need math support in the browser (think of all the university math departments just for starters…) to pay for development?

As a result, we have no browser that fully supports MathML. While you cannot overstate the accomplishments of the volunteer work, it’s important to tell the full story. Recent cries that Chrome and Safari support MathML can give the wrong impression of the potential for MathML when users encounter bad rendering of basic constructs. The combination of native MathML support, font support, and authoring tools, [ see this more recent post for more detail] makes mathematical content one of the most complex situations for web typesetting.

There have been some valiant attempts to fix this lack of equation support with third-party math typesetting code (JavaScript), notably Asciimath by Peter Jipsen with its human-readable syntax and image fallbacks, jqmath by Dave Barton (same as above), and MathQuill.

However, by far the most comprehensive solution is the MathJax libraries (JavaScript) released as Open Source. While MathJax is developed by a small team (including Frédéric Wang above) they are bigger than most projects, with a growing community and sponsors. MathJax renders beautiful equations as HTML-CSS (using web fonts) or as SVG. The markup used can be either MathML, Asciimath or TeX. That means authors can write (ugly) markup like this:

J\alpha(x) = \sum\limits{m=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^m}{m! , \Gamma(m + \alpha + 1)}{\left({\frac{x}{2}}\right)}^{2 m + \alpha}

into an HTML page and it will be rendered into a lovely looking scalable, copy-and-paste-able equation. You can see it in action here.

### So why is this really interesting to publishing?

Well… while EPUB3 specifications support MathML, this has not made it very far into e-reader devices. However, MathJax is being utilised in e-reader software that has JavaScript support. Since many ebook readers are built upon Webkit (notably Android and iOS apps, including iBooks) this strategy can work reasonably effectively. Image rendering of equations in ebook format is another strategy, and possibly the only guaranteed strategy at present, however, you can’t copy, edit, annotate or scale the equations and you cannot expect proper accessibility with images.

The only real solution is full equation support in all browsers and e-readers either through native MathML support or through the inclusion of libraries like MathJax. We can’t do anything to help the proprietary reader developments get this functionality other than by lobbying them to support EPUB3 (a worthwhile effort) but since more and more reading devices are using the Open Source WebKit, we can influence that directly.

The publishing industry should really be asking itself why it is leaving such an important issue to under-resourced volunteers and small organisations like MathJax to solve. Are there no large publishers who need equation support in their electronic books that could step forward and put some money on the table to assist WebKit support of equations? Couldn’t more publishers be as enlightened as Springer and support the development of MathJax? You don’t even have to be a large publisher to help – any coding or financial support would be extremely useful.

It does seem that this is a case of an important technological issue central to the development of the publishing industry ‘being left to others.’ I have the impression that it is because the industry as a whole doesn’t actually understand what technologies are at the centre of their business. Bold statement as it is, I just don’t see how such important developments could go otherwise untouched by publishers. It could all be helped enormously with relatively small amounts of cash. Hire a coder and dedicate them to assist these developments. Contact Dave Barton or MathJax and ask them how your publishing company can help move this along and back that offer up with cash or coding time. It’s actually that simple.

Many thanks to Peter Krautzberger for fact checking and technical clarifications.

Published on O’Reilly, 26 November 2012 http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/11/math-typesetting.html

## InDesign vs. CSS

The explosion in web typesetting has been largely unnoticed by everyone except the typography geeks. One of the first posts that raised my awareness of this phenomenon was From Print to Web: Creating Print-Quality Typography in the Browser by Joshua Gross. It is a great article which is almost a year old yet still needs to be read by those that haven’t come across it. Apart from pointing to some very good JavaScript typesetting libraries, Joshua does a quick comparison of InDesign features vs. what is available in CSS and JS libs (at the time of writing).

It’s a very quick run down and shows just how close things are getting. In addition, Joshua points to strategies for working with baselines using grids formulated by JavaScript and CSS. Joshua focuses on Hugrid but also worth mentioning is the JMetronome library and BaselineCSS. These approaches are getting increasingly sophisticated and, of course, they are all Open Source.

It brings to our attention that rendering engines utilising HTML as a base file format are ready to cash in on some pretty interesting developments. However, it also highlights how rendering engines that support only CSS (such as the proprietary PrinceXML) are going to lose out in the medium and long term since they lack JavaScript support. JavaScript, as I mentioned before, is the lingua franca of typesetting. JS libs enable us to augment, improve, and innovate on top of what is available directly through the browser. Any typesetting engine without JavaScript support is simply going to lose out in the long run. Any engine that ignores JavaScript and/or is proprietary, loses out doubly so since it is essentially existing on a technical island and cannot take advantage of the huge innovations happening in this field which are available to everyone else.

Once again, this points the way for the browser as typesetting engine; HTML as the base file format for web, print, and ebook production; and CSS and Javascript as the dynamic duo lingua franca of typesetting. All that means Open Source and Open Standards are gravitating further and faster towards the core of the print and publishing industries. If you didn’t think Open Source is a serious proposition it might be a good idea to call time-out, get some JS and CSS wizards in, and have a heart-to-heart talk about the direction the industry is heading in.

Correction: The latest release of PrinceXML has limited beta Javascript support. Thanks to Michael Day for pointing this out.

Originally published on O’Reilly, 19 Nov 2012 http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/11/indesign-vs-css.html

## Open API: The Blanche DuBois Economy

‘Open API’ is a well-known term that seldom gets challenged. It passes in conversation as an agreed-upon good. However, it should be recognised that there is no such thing as an Open API – the term is a euphemism for a specific kind of technical service offered with no contractual agreement to secure those services.

‘Open API’ trades off the term ‘open’ to imply some kind of transparency – which often is missing on both technical and business levels. Badly documented APIs with no guarantee of service are usually what you will be dealing with. To rely on an Open API is to  lack transparency – it is doing business by relying on the kindness of strangers (as Blanche DuBois would say).

In other words, the Web 2.0 economy encourages us to utilise third-party services with no contractual agreements in place for these critical, and sometimes core, business processes.

This week there was a very interesting case in point. Lulu.com announced they are  discontinuing support for their publishing API. In an email sent out early in the week, clients were informed:

We’d like to thank you for your participation in the Lulu API Program and share an important update. Over the last two years, we have made significant investments into building our APIs and making them useful to third-party developers, however they have not achieved the adoption which we had anticipated and we will no longer be supporting APIs.

We will discontinue support of our existing APIs on January 15th, 2013.

The Lulu API was, by the way, a very good API and very well documented. However, the above means that if you relied on the Lulu API for your business, then bad luck, you better find another way to do it.

Lulu, of course, is subject to its own business processes and they have obviously invested a lot in the development of an API for little return. Their approach has been very straightforward and they communicated to their clients well in advance that there was going to be a change in their API service. As far as things go, Lulu has done it pretty much by the book, however, my point is addressed to a wider concern: API providers should offer their clients a contract which guarantees the terms and conditions of technical services provided by their APIs. Without this contract, businesses are not in a position (and should not be tempted) to confidently build innovative models that leverage the powerful possibilities that these APIs can offer.

Originally posted on O’Reilly, 13 November 2012 http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/11/open-api-the-blanche-dubois-economy.html

## Why Attribution is not Sustainable

It’s easy to understand the problems with attribution. In the one book = one author days, it was easy – put the author’s name on the cover. 50 years later, same book, same solution.

However, this does not work for collaboratively-produced works and it is one of the most difficult issues for free culture going forward. Already in FLOSS Manuals, we have books that have 8 pages of credits – each chapter individually referenced with the copyright and attribution data. Some books have 40-50 chapters and some chapters have 20+ collaborators, all of which need to be listed. For FLOSS Manuals, we solved the problem by generating these lists – when edits are done in Booktype, there is a digital record of who did what, so we just automatically generate this list. However, this is just the beginning and we are already asking ourselves – are 8 pages of credits really necessary?

The answer is no, it is not necessary. Attribution is not as important with collaboratively-produced works as one might have suspected. Those involved in the process are not too worried about it – there is some kind of excitement generated by pushing your name forward as a protagonist at some key moment in the life of a book but this can happen in the text, as part of the book’s story, or in press releases, blog posts and so on. We don’t actually need attribution – the prominent foregrounding of all the names of the individuals involved in the book’s production. What we need is backgrounding of this information and the ability to know the history and lineage of a book.

We need standards to maintain history records for a book’s development and we also need this to be stored in publicly- accessible repositories so we can check this information for interest’s sake or more meaningful uses such as historical records, or research.

These records of book history could be also very necessary for verification of content. If, for example, we use open licenses or (one day) no copyright then how do we verify quotes, for example? (In reality, provenance is orthogonal to copyright restrictions, and indeed such restrictions are an obstacle to maintaining provenance, but still. people often ask this question.)  How do I know that this book, which purports to be the thoughts of the author, actually does present the thoughts of the author and not some maliciously invented text masquerading as such ?

Currently, in free software circles, there are at least three major strategies for dealing with this kind of issue:

• Use a publicly-trusted source for the distribution of content so people know that if the book comes from a trusted source it is what it says it is.
• Use a ‘checksum’ – a method for verifying of any errors have been introduced in the text during the transmission (delivery) of the content.
• Digitally-sign content so that it can be verified as coming from the purported source.
• Libraries or public archives could play a very strong role here. Records of history would become very important in a federated or prolific free-content environment, not just for research but for providing public mechanisms and standards for the ongoing verification of sources.

Attribution is the star system of the single author = single book publishing system. With the breakdown of these models, or at least with the diversification of these models, author attribution will, out-of-necessity, become a more transient commodity. Collating version and contribution history, however, might become a business in itself.

Which is all to say that lowercase attribution (a useful bit of provenance info) is sustainable. By contrast, Attribution to Authors as creator-gods is suspect and superfluous.

## Gutenberg Regions

With the onward march towards the browser typesetting engine, not an invention but a combination of technologies with some improvements (much like Gutenberg’s press), it’s interesting to think what that would mean for print production. Although there are various perspectives on how the printing press changed society – and they mostly reflect on the mass production of books – and while the first great demonstration involved a book (The Gutenberg Bible), the invention itself was really about automating the printing process. It affected all paper products that were formerly inscribed by hand and it brought in new print product innovations (no not just Hallmark birthday cards but also new ways of assembling and organising information).

The press affected not just the book but also print production. And now we have browsers able to produce print-ready PDF and the technology arriving to output PDF from the browser that directly corresponds with what you see in the browser window, we are entering the new phase of print (and book) production – networked in-browser design. We are not talking here of emulated template-like design but the 1:1 design process you experience with software like Scribus and InDesign.

### The evolution of CSS

There are several JavaScript libraries that deal with this, as I have mentioned in earlier posts (here and here), and the evolution of CSS is really opening this field up. Of particular interest is what Adobe is doing behind the scenes with CSS Regions. These regions are part of the W3C specification for CSS and the browser adopting this specific feature the fastest is the Open Source browser engine Webkit, which is used by Chrome and Safari (not to mention Chromium and other browsers).

CSS Regions allow text to flow from one page element to another. That means you can flow text from one box to another box, which is what is leveraged in the book.js technology I wrote about here. This feature was included in Webkit by the Romanian development team working for Adobe. It appears that Adobe has seen the writing on the wall for desktop publishing although they might not be singing that song too loudly considering most of their business comes out of that market. Their primary (public facing) reason for including CSS Regions and other features in Webkit is to support their new product Adobe Edge. Adobe Edge uses, according to the website, Webkit as a ‘design surface’.

A moment of respect please for the Adobe team for contributing these features to Webkit. Also don’t forget in that moment to also reflect quietly on Konquerer (specifically KHTML), the ‘little open source project’ borne out of the Linux Desktop KDE which grew into Webkit. It’s an astonishing success story for Open Source and possibly in the medium term a more significant contribution to our world than Open Source kernels (I’m sure that statement will get a few bites).

”HTML-based design surface” is about as close to a carefully constructed non-market-cannibalising euphemism as I would care to imagine. Adobe Edge is in-browser design in action produced by one of the world’s leading print technology providers but the role of the browser in this technology is not the biggest noise being made at its release. Edge is ‘all about’ adaptive design but in reality it’s about the new role of the browser as a ‘target agnostic’ (paper, device, webpage, whatever – it’s all the same) typesetting engine.

### A consortium, not an individual company

However, we should not rely on Adobe for these advances. It is about time a real consortium focused on Open Source and Open Standards started paying for these developments as they are critical to the print and publishing industries and for anyone else wanting to design for devices and/or paper. That’s pretty much everyone.

Gutenberg died relatively poor because someone else took his idea and cornered the market. Imagine if he put all the design documents out there for the printing press and said ‘go to it.’ Knowing what you know now, would you get involved and help build the printing press? If the answer is no, I deeply respect your honesty. But that’s where we are now with CSS standards like regions, exclusions, and the page-generated content module. The blueprints are there for the new typesetting engine, right there out in the open. The print and publishing industries should take that opportunity and make their next future.

Originally posted on Nov 6, 2012 on O’Reillys Tools of Change site: http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/11/gutenberg-regions.html

## book.js

I mentioned in an earlier post that the movable type of Gutenberg’s time has become realtime, in a very real sense each book is typeset as we read it. Content is dynamically re-flowed for each device depending on display dimensions and individualised settings. Since ebooks are web pages, browsers have come to play a central role in digital e-readers.
What is interesting here, is that the browser can also reflow content into fixed page formats such as PDF which means that the browser is on its way to becoming the typesetting engine for print. book.js demonstrates nicely the role of the browser as print typesetting engine.book.js is a JavaScript library that you can use to turn a web page into a PDF formatted for printing as a book. Take a web page, add the Javascript, and you will see the page transformed into a paginated book complete with page breaks, margins, page numbers, table of contents, front matter, headers and so on. When you print that page, you have a book-formatted PDF ready to print. It’s that simple.

It brings us closer to in-browser print design and a step closer to the demise of desktop publishing. Although book.js is in an alpha form, it is a clear demonstration that the browser is fast becoming the new environment for print design.

That is an enormous leap, one that not only means print design environments can be developed using browser-based technology, which will surely lead to enormous innovation, but it radically changes the process of design. The design of books and paper products enters a networked environment. This will enable more possibilities for collaborative design and bring print production into the workflow of online content production. There will be no need to exit browser-based environments to take content from source to final output. This means there is no need to juggle multiple sources for different stages of production, there can be efficiency gains through integrated workflow, and, most interestingly, content production and design can occur simultaneously…

It is also important to realise that these same technologies, book.js and others that will follow it, can make the same things possible for ebook production. Flowing text into PDF for a paper book, or into e-reader screen display dimensions, is the same thing. This enables synchronous in-browser design and production on a single source for multiple output formats.

book.js is Open Source, developed originally by and for Booktype, but the team is looking to collaborate with whoever would like to push this code base further. It is at the alpha stage and a lot of work still needs to be done, so please consider jumping in, improving the code and contributing back into the public repository.

book.js demo and information can be found here .  Note: This is strictly for the geeks to try as it requires the latest version of Chrome; see the demo information.

Originally posted on O’Reilly, 29 October 2012
http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/10/bookjs-turns-your-browser-into-a-print-typesetting-engine.html

## The New New Typography

In the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, there was a movement known as the New Typography. It was a movement that rejected traditional type set in symmetrical columns and instead treated the printer’s block as a blank canvas to be explored in its entirety. The calling card of the movement was type arranged in harmonious and beautiful asymmetric compositions. In the past two years, there has been another slow-breaking wave of typographical exploration. The printer’s block is now HTML, and CSS and JavaScript are fast becoming the new tools of the typographer – not just for the web but for ebooks and for print, and not just for printed books, but for all printed material.

### Browser as typesetting machine

The change of the book’s basic carrier medium from paper to HTML (the stuff web pages are made of) has meant many changes to what we might still call typesetting. Kindle and other e-ink devices actually move ink on a display screen to form words, sentences and paragraphs. The moveable type of Gutenberg’s time has become real time – in a very real sense, each book is typeset as we read it. Content is dynamically re-flowed for each device, depending on display dimensions and individualised settings to aid readability. Moving type in ‘read time’ marks a significant paradigm shift from moveable type systems, including digital moveable type manipulated by desktop publishing software, to flowable typesetting. We are leaving behind moveable type for flowable type.

The engine for reflowing a page in real time is something we have seen before. It is the job of the browser. And, since ebooks are webpages, browsers have come to play a central role in digital e-readers. In the case of the iPad, the iBook reader is actually a fully featured browser engine, Webkit, the very same technology behind the Chrome and Safari browsers. Browsers are the typesetting machines for ebooks.

What is interesting here, is that the browser can also reflow content into fixed page formats such as PDF, which means that the browser is becoming the typesetting engine for print. CSS and Javascript are the print design tools of our immediate future and the vast majority of innovations in this area are based on Open Source and Open Standards.

### The power of CSS and JavaScript

CSS is the set of rules followed by the browser in placing type, images and other elements on a webpage and styling those elements. Typical rules define where an image is placed in relationship to text, the font used, the font size, background colour of the page, and the maximum width of an image, and so on. While designed originally for the exclusive application to webpages, the CSS Working Group responsible for overseeing the development and direction of CSS, anticipated the intersection of the book and the web some time ago. In the latest drafts of the CSS standards, new additions are almost entirely focused on typography and page control. As a consequence, this area is starting to blossom. In particular, the CSS Generated Content for Paged Media Module specification is astonishing for its reframing of flowable text into a fixed page. Cross reference and footnote controls, not needed on the web, are among many book-like structure controls being addressed by CSS. Table of contents creation, figure annotations, page references, page numbers, margin controls, page size, and more, are all included. The definition of these rules precedes their adoption in browsers, however they are being included in browser engines, notably Webkit, at a very fast pace.

Coincidently, there has recently been an explosion in interest in improving browser typography primarily for the better design of websites. Although these advances have not been made with book production in mind, these advances can be inherited by the browser for typesetting both electronic and paper books. Of interest is the sharp rise in the websites offering tips on CSS typography, an associated explosion of the available web fonts, and some very interesting JavaScript libraries.

JavaScript is the programming language of the web and it can be used to create dynamic content or manipulate objects on a webpage in ways CSS cannot, or cannot yet. Of particular interest is kerning.js, inspired by the previously available lettering.js library. These code libraries allow you to change each letter individually in a paragraph or heading and control the spacing between letters (called ‘kerning’). Kerning is essential for printed books, and ebooks, but missing from browsers for a very long time. colorfont.js is another JavaScript library which enables dual toned glyphs, and the amazing typeset.js emulates the sophisticated TeX line spacing algorithms developed by Donald Knuth.

Even the layout of musical notation and guitar tablature (which were never effectively mechanised with Gutenberg’s moveable type and were handwritten into books for many decades after the printing press came into the world) have come into focus with another JavaScript library, VexFlow. With libraries like these, it is apparent that JavaScript, the programming language of the browser, has a future with typography, and that JavaScript is fast becoming the lingua franca for all typesetting.

There is a lot of fuel in these developments and, interestingly, most of it is coming from outside the traditional print and publishing industry. It could be said that these industries, built upon the printing press, have lost sight of their very foundation. Instead, the IT industry is taking hold on a very deep level.

Apple and Google are behind the development of Webkit – the rendering engine behind iBooks, Safari and Chrome – which makes a lot of these typesetting innovations possible. Apple utilises these typographical features not just in its browser, but in the development of its iBook reader – the ebook reader on iPad which is itself based on Webkit. Google also fuels these innovations for many reasons other than the browser – better typography in Google Docs being one of them. We can expect the momentum to build and it is possible to say with some confidence that the browser, together with CSS and JavaScript, is to become the most important typesetting engine of our time as it is fast becoming the typesetting mechanism for digital and paper books and the web.

### Ease and efficiencies

The implications of this succession by the browser are enormous and possibly not yet fully realised. At publishing industry conferences and other book-focused forums, the attention has largely been on the ebook’s affect on distribution, and on e-readers and the demise of the so-called bricks-and-mortar book stores. The biggest effects, however, are elsewhere, ‘bubbling under’ in the recasting of the browser as a typesetting engine, and with it the slow realisation that the technical ecosystem surrounding book production can be replaced by tools for producing webpages.

We are beginning to turn our attention to the tools for making webpages, to make books, and this, it turns out, is much easier than with desktop word processing and publishing software. Additionally due to recent developments, all of this, as it turns out, can also be used to design print (more on in-browser print production in a future post). Book production once again is becoming faster and cheaper and is on its way to achieving another leap of magical efficiency.

The future of book production right now is exploding all around us. These pieces of the puzzle are coming together and coming together fast. We can almost watch in real time as the necessary mechanics get filled in by new release candidates of major browsers and searching online for ‘out of the blue’ small innovations such as JavaScript typography controls. It is getting easier and easier to make books in the browser and consequently there has never been a time when it has been this easy to make books of all kinds.

Ease of production is where it all started for Gutenberg and it is starting again for us. If you believe Gutenberg’s efficiencies changed society forever, then what affect will the new-new typesetting engines have? It’s a giddy question. Making books in the browser will have an enormous impact on society as a whole, and just like the printing press, it will not revolutionise the old order, but create a new one.

Originally published on O’Reilly website, 18 Oct 2012 http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/10/the-new-new-typography.html