The source code is open source, but it was apparent from the beginning that Vivliostyle-the-company were not into collaborating unless we could pay. We tried very hard to get inside their bubble and contribute, but were pretty well cold-shouldered. We offered meeting resources for community building, and developer and designer time, to help move it all on. Coko went to quite some effort to promote what they were doing (eg https://www.adamhyde.net/why-vivliostyle-is-important/ + the posts on PagedMedia.org by Coko’s Julien Taquet. But they wanted none of it. I was also pretty sure they were being paid to extend Vivliostyle but not putting those changes back into the common pool. Fauxpen, as they say.
We weren’t the only ones to feel things were odd – I spoke to many people who felt the same way and who had had similar experiences. As a result, to de-risk ourselves I founded another initiative – pagedmedia.org – so we would not be reliant on Vivliostyle. My thoughts on this were very similar to what I recently wrote about editors ie. if an open source community is not open to building community, something is wrong and you should carefully consider whether you should be involved with them. They could at any time change direction, and if there was no community at play, then you could be left high and dry. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions and we made it…
No one really wants to build an automated typesetting solution from zero unless they have to. After trying to solve this problem for the last 10 years or so (with open source) I wanted to see it done…so… sigh… if it (unfortunately) wasn’t going to be Vivliostyle after all, then what choice did I have? So I committed to this new endeavor (which is going very well! some cool updates soon) and we launched at MIT Press earlier this year with a community-first approach. We are, similarly, currently considering our choice of editor libraries because of similar concerns.
So, as it happens, I guessed it right and moved at the right time… as that is exactly what has happened with Vivliostyle. A few weeks ago they mysteriously posted a new company name (Trim-Marks Inc) and site under the old URL and pointed vivliostyle.com to vivliostyle.org. No further information was forthcoming. Now there is an announcement about it all on vivliostyle.org… you can read it here: https://vivliostyle.org/blog/2018/03/26/a-new-beginning/
Essentially Vivliostyle-the-company went off to form trim-marks.com.
I have no idea what they do, but it isn’t open source. Vivliostyle, the open source project, is apparently continuing under the new .org site, led by Shinyu Murakami and Florian Rivoal. I know them and like them both. Very talented and committed people. I met Shinyu when he was thinking about how to tackle this problem – we met at Books in Browsers a long time ago and talked about strategies for solving this problem. So, I wish them all the best, but I retain some initial skepticism – until I see them actively building community, I won’t be terribly interested in going down that path again… They are good folks, so who knows… fingers crossed (the more projects active in this space the better).
I’ve been in the business of trying to work out how to get Publishing (capital ‘P’) into the web. From the start, there have been some ‘big ticket’ items that have needed to be solved. Some are more urgent than others, but by and large we are cracking these nuts one by one. I have considered for a long time the big 4 to be:
MS Word to HTML conversion
an open source web-based word processor
paginated output via the browser to print-ready copy
1,2 an 3 are the ‘now’ critical items, number 4 is necessary but a little further down the line. Thankfully, at Coko we are solving these first 3 problems. To solve (1) we are building XSweet, a comprehensive (open source) XSLT conversion suite for converting MS Word to HTML. We are also building Wax to solve (2), Wax is an open source web based word processor based on the Substance.io libs. And for (3) we are using Vivliostyle for in-browser rendering. Number 4) is still on the cards.
Interestingly, the pagination technology (3) might need re-evaluating since pagination will eventually be required for the editor and the in-browser designer.
While pagination inside a web-based processor is not critical for publishers, it is critical for authors and small offices etc and if we are going to get publishers to use a web-based word processor then it would be better that they share infrastructure rather than sit on their own island of technology ie. eventually we need authors to use these tools too. By sharing infrastructure I don’t mean they need to use exactly the same tools, they just need to use compatible tools. So, eventually, we need to migrate authors into the web. It is not critical now, but over time, as the workflow for authors and publishers inevitably becomes more integrated, it will turn out to be necessary.
For in-browser design we need pagination support also so we can work off a single source for the content and then design in the browser to output to the various formats publishers need. Think Gimp or InDesign in the browser. It’s not as far away as it might sound, but to do this we need to be able to paginate inside the browser and have that update with live style changes to CSS.
So far, we are solving the big ticket issues 1-3, but for the next stage of changes we may need to change the tools we use for pagination so we can live-update content and styles and reflow in an editor and in-browser designer. That may mean we to start looking for a different pagination solution.
The past two posts I wrote on this topic looked at defining the difference between a text editor and a word processor. The posts in this series represent me ‘thinking out loud’ about what word processing needs to evolve into in the age of the web. So far, in my opinion we haven’t seen an evolution from the desktop given that Google Docs, as the premier example, looks and thinks pretty much like MS Word.
For this post I’m going to look at the first obvious visual differentiator between a text editor and a word processor. You notice this immediately when you open a word processor document, and you are skilled at manipulating its characteristics, but you might not think of it as a ‘feature’ as it is so present to almost be invisible – I’m talking about pagination. The first thing you notice when you open an existing document or start a new one is pagination, the boundaried space that makes your digital interface look like a piece of paper. Its not the sort of thing we think of when we think about a ‘feature’ but it is probably the strongest differentiating characteristic that separates the two categories of software.
Why do we need pagination in a word processor? What purpose does it serve?
There are a number of purposes. Picking them off one by one:
navigation. We can generate navigational schemas if the content is paginated. These can either be inline references to page numbers or it might be in the form of a table of contents.
position in document. Related to (1) above – knowing what page number you are on, and the total number of pages, is an important function of pagination.
boundaried read/write space. In the print world it has long been considered a best practice to have between 45-75 characters per line (commonly abbreviated as CPL). Various arguments have been made that this number is optimum for speed of reading and comprehension (although I haven’t found any research about this, if you know of any please let me know!). Robert Bringhurst, the author of The Elements of Typographic Style (a goto for many book designers), goes even further to suggest the ideal number of characters for optimum legibility is 66. That is pretty specific. As it happens writing environments have always been around this range. Typewriters, for example, were generally around 80-90 CPL, teletype around 70-72 CPL, and this WordPress editor in which I am writing this has 72 CPL. Bounded spaces in Word Processors generally limit the CPL to around the same amount. Google docs is somewhere around 70-80 CPL, and LibreOffice is around 80. The area of 70-80 seems to be quite standard for Word Processors but laptops and larger screens can easily accommodate hundreds of characters per line so we need a bounded space to limit the CPL. Pages are a handy, and familiar, way to boundary the text area to limit CPL.
‘how much’ metrics. Word count is one indicator of how long a work is, but page count is often used both formally (ie. funding applications or job applications require a fixed number of pages) and intuitively by the writer to get a sense of how long their work is as they create it. Academics, in particular, often think of a works length in terms of page count.
expected ‘look’. Placement of headers and footers, page numbers etc are added to a document to make it conform to an expected look and feel. A letter of application for a job, for example, needs these elements as they are generally considered to add an air of formality to the document. This is obviously inherited from the age of paper but interestingly we still do this regardless of whether the content is printed, distributed as a word processor file, or rendered to paginated PDF.
design canvas. Interestingly, word processors are used as design environments. Think of the times you have played with fonts, tried to get the right spacing between a heading and the following paragraphs, added images and tweaked with the text flow to make the image sit well in the page etc. A boundaried ‘page’ presents a known canvas within which we can apply our implicit document design skills honed over many years of using word processors.
to print, or the possibility of print. There always is the possibility that the documents we create will be printed. If not by us, then those we share the documents with. We implicitly understand that if it looks fine on the screen then anyone printing it ‘sometime later’ will get a tidy outcome. In many cases we don’t think about it much, it’s more of an implicit assumption that covers us ‘just in case’ it is printed.
So, what to make of this. First, pagination is pretty essential to how many people use a Word Processor. It’s hard to think we can do without it. We might be able to achieve some of the above without a page paradigm. We could probably reasonably easily overcome the first 4 issues above – for example, we could provide word counts + ‘approximate page count’ indicators to give an idea of ‘how much’ content there is, provide a hierarchal navigation view of headings instead of page numbers for navigating around a document and as a ‘table of contents’ as Google Docs and eLife Lens (based on Substance.io) does.
In addition, there are a number of ways to indicate the reading position in a document that do not require page numbers – check out this example (thanks to Julien Taquet for this tip), and it is also possible to limit the CPL without providing page boundaries in the design as Wax Editor does.
However…the show stoppers really are the last 3 from the list above (to summarise again) –
expected look – many documents are expected to have page-based design elements regardless of whether we actually print them
design canvas – we know how (from years of banging around on ugly Word Processors) how to design documents using Word Processors, and
to print, or the possibility of print – we never know when something might be printed so knowing it looks ok on a ‘virtual page’ is a nice guarantee that it will look fine if printed.
Are we stuck with pagination?
It is difficult to argue that we could easily, or completely, throw away the page based paradigm based on these three items. So…does that mean Word Processors will be forever tied to the rather ugly page that you see floating like an existentially blank canvas every time you start a new document? Will web-based word processors forever be stuck in this paper paradigm?
My argument is no. We don’t need the page. Or at least, right now, in many use cases we can throw it away. The examples I used above provided clear cases where we need to directly correlate what you see when you create a document to the final result – whether for screen-based display, or print. But not every use case is like this. What is one of the biggest situations where you do not require a strict co-relation like this? Publishing.
I think I might hear you thinking ‘huh’? Afterall, if there is one industry that actually does require pagination it is the publishing industry (thinking in terms of the book and journal publishing sector for now, excluding newspapers, magazines etc).
That is true. However, the publishing industry doesn’t distribute to their readers a journal article as an MS Word file, or a book as a directory of MS Word files. They distribute unpaginated (usually) HTML files on the web, paginated PDF, EPUB files with various approaches to pagination, or paper. They generate these files by sending their source files (often MS Word) to an external vendor or in-house designer, who imports them into any number of design environments and converts this into the required formats.
Pagination comes ‘at the end of the line’ so to speak. Hence, unlike the typical home or office environment, there is no 1:1 correlation between what you see in word processors and what is finally distributed. So the needs of a word processor for a general user might be different to the needs of publisher. That, in itself, is pretty interesting. What if we could imagine specific word processors for specific use cases….
However, you will notice that word processors take a one-size-fits-all approach. We don’t have one word processor for book authors, one for publishers, one for lawyers (etc etc etc)…that is not to say we don’t need to differentiate these use cases and look at the specific needs of each. Interestingly, developing web based environments takes a lot less work that developing desktop applications and things have moved on since MS Word first hit the shelves. The web gives us substantially more room for modularity and customisation. With web-based word processors, every feature can be a configurable option. Don’t want or need track changes? That’s ok… remove it… Need a Diacritics interface? Easy… add it. Don’t want pagination? Remove it.
The point is, we can start building web based word processors that are highly customisable and can be configured to meet individual use cases. We haven’t seen that so far in word processing, Google Docs has also chosen a one size fits all – the only real difference here between GDocs and MS Word is that their ‘all’ is a smaller group. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do it if it makes sense. Technically it is very feasible and, as it happens, it’s the approach we are taking with the Wax Editor.
So, let’s imagine we have our own word processor made specifically for publishers. Do we need pagination? What role does it play in publisher workflows?
It is true that relative to the total number of publishers out there I’ve seen inside a small % of publishers’ workflows. However, interestingly, with each new publisher I work with I am seeing, more or less, the same workflows and from what I have seen so far, MS Word files are used widely to support a kind of early page-prep workflow. Publishers check and improve the content of course, but they also make sure certain elements are in place that will affect the final design. They check, for example, if all paragraphs are correctly indented. They check if images are in the right place, they check if headings are marked correctly and that no levels have been jumped etc. These all affect the final paginated outcomes, but none of this requires working within, or manipulating, pagination as it appears in the word processor. Checking the results of pagination (including page numbers, running heads, widows and orphans etc) comes when publishers do their page proofs ie. when they check the PDF before print or distribution (sadly, many publishers don’t check EPUB very thoroughly but just accept that it ‘is what it is’). Publishers don’t currently check the results of pagination, as it will appear in their final distributable form, in the word processor. So pagination in the word processor, at least on this point, is a little redundant.
So… my point is, if we get down to it, pagination features in a word processor are not required when you are working inside a publisher to prepare a document for publishing. We could instead use an unpaginated environment with a navigation based on document structure (not pages), word count as a metric for how much content there is, and simple constraints on CPL that do not look like a boxed, bounded, page.
But…what about the need to print on your office or home printer? Interestingly, I think this gets to the crux of the matter. Unbounded, flowable text, in a word processor does not mean you can’t print. It only means what you see in the word processor won’t have a one-to-one co-relation, with regard to pagination, to what is printed. But the big question is – is this acceptable to publishing staff? Can we get them to let go of thinking, a product of many years of legacy word processing user experience design, that the pagination in the browser ‘must’ correlate to the pagination that comes out of their home or office printer. My experience designing such systems alongside publishing staff leads me to believe his is possible. In fact, the University of California staff designed the Editoria system which features the Wax Editor which displays content sans pagination. The challenge is – it is up to us to show them that throwing pagination out works in their favour.
Before I go on to why throwing out pagination can be a convincing argument, I want to indulge in a rather lengthy aside and state that throwing out pagination is not the same as ‘not printing’. The results of printing from an ‘unpaginated’ form in a web-based word processor can be beautiful and a more consistent experience than printing off ‘any old’ word file. This is because we can use CSS print styles to make beautiful looking results that come out of your home printer. The point is only that the pagination will not correlate to what you see in the word processor. But you can have other things – for example, you could render pages for printing at any time that look like your final output. Quite probably this statement is news, or confusing, to you. It needs extensive explanation. But the idea, in basic form, is that content in HTML based word processors can be shaped by CSS into paginated form in the browser. This process allows you to automatically format the content into book or article form including running heads, page numbers, widow and orphan control, multiple columns (if desired) while also generating the table of contents and even indexes. This can be achieved, for example, by platforms that leverage tools like Vivliostyle. I’ll get to this in subsequent posts, maybe even the next one (in the meantime, you may wish to read this). For now, I want to leave this issue to the side but make the simple point that content that is not bounded by a page in the word processor can still be printed and, further, the results can be more beautiful and consistent than what you get by printing from Google Docs or MS Word today. However, the process of printing will feel slightly different because ‘how you print’ will be to first render a view that is conformant with your printer and then print. It’s not much different to how it is done now because this is how print-preview works in word processors today. When we print, we commonly choose the page format at print time, although most of the time we leave it at its defaults because we know that what we have seen in the word processor is the same as what will come out of the printer. ‘The new way’ would mean you will need to pay more attention to the second step – checking the formating in print preview before printing. Which is why I emphasise that the process will feel slightly different, the actual change in behaviour is minimal, if anything at all. But it would be a mistake to conflate user experience with user behaviour. The experience of the software is nothing to be brushed lightly aside, it can be a very strong impediment to new ways of working. So how things feel need to be taken into account. Which is why I think, ultimately, we will need other arguments to help many (not all) ‘get across the line’.
Which brings us back to the question – what is the advantage of not having pagination? If we can do away with it we have far more options for making beautiful experiences. The bounded page that all word processors commonly present is, in my opinion, hideous. It constrains how you construct a user interface, how people feel about that interface, and how people work. If we can free ourselves from it I think we open the door for much better experiences and innovations on what a word processor can do and be which also means, in the publishing industry, we can start innovating around word processor workflow.
Additionally, removing pagination from the word processor in publishing workflows is better aligned with how publishing works. Publishing formats do not share the same pagination. An EPUB page is not going to be the same page as the content displayed on the net, in a Kindle, in a PDF, or in a book. Might as well let that one go. If we need pagination at all, it needs to look like the final output and we need to get it earlier in the workflow than what currently occurs. Currently, publishers only see this after the content has been through their workflow and gets ingested and output to various formats by a designer, production staff, or external vendor. However…. HTML based word processors that leverage tools like Vivliostyle (mentioned above) enable the content to be paginated to all these formats on the fly. That means you can have ‘page proofs’ anytime you want in the process. So, letting go of pagination in the word processor, coupled with the ability to create these various paginated forms at any time, is an advantage to publishers. Publishers don’t need to wait for page proofs from a designer before they can tweak elements in the content (eg placement of images) to make the pages flow better in the final output. They can render, check, and tweak at any moment. From this point of view seeing one kind of pagination in the browser, especially one that conforms to a generic printed page coming out of the office printer, as it does now, is counter intuitive. But, I don’t expect many publishing staff to accept this by argument alone. We have to first get most people to experience this, and other benefits of a pagination free experience in a word processor, before they can start moving the way they work forward.
My conclusions? Well, I think it will be a while before we can convince the general user to drop pagination. But web based web processors allow us to build much more customisable experiences and avoid the ‘one size fits all’ approach. We can build to meet publishers’ specific needs and it is because of this that I believe we can produce software that will convince publishers to make the conversion sooner. This is because we can make the experience for them better if we drop pagination. The pages, which they look at for hours on end, can be cleaner, easier to read, and less tiring over long periods of time. We can also start using space more effectively by removing borders around pages (with their attendant inner and outer margins). And lastly, I think it is important to remove pagination from word processors for publishing workflows because it helps disambiguate what you see in the word processor from the final, designed and paginated, results. This latter point has positive knock-on effects that I will come to in other posts. Couple all this with the ability to ‘paginate on the fly’ (so to speak) at print time (for domestic/office printers) or to generate ‘page proofs’ of many target formats, and we have a winner.
The Cabbage Tree Book pictured above was made using entirely HTML as the base file format. It was then rendered from HTML to PDF using Vivliostyle and printed and bound. Julien Taquet did this work and he has written the first of a series of blog posts about how this was done here:
Yes, here it is. The 0.1 version of the book on the open source collaborative product development method known as…. The Cabbage Tree Method. It’s an early release just for you. I’d love comments (use the comments on this post for this version).
Vivliostyle advertises itself as a “publishing workflow tool.” It is a great tool but this isn’t a terribly accurate or descriptive byline since publishers can’t really use it without changing everything else they do. Hence my preference to refer to it as an HTML pagination engine (although I used to refer to this process as Browser Typesetting). It can be part of a publisher’s workflow but only after they have transformed everything else they do to an HTML-first workflow.
On this point, I think Vivliostyle have their sales pitch wrong but it is hard to know how they might do it better since Vivliostyle imagines, as do many other tools, a radically different way of doing things to how publishers operate now. Vivliostyle is one necessary part of an approach that is, in effect, a paradigm shift in how publishers work. This ‘new way’ of working is exciting and transformative, but it is also hard to capture paradigmatic changes in a few catch phrases. So, to understand the value of Vivliostyle, you first have to understand how publishers work now, why it is a terrible way to work, and what HTML-first workflows can offer. Once you understand that, you can see how exciting Vivliostyle could be for publishing.
So… what does it do? Vivliostyle is the latest in a long list of tools that, among other things (more on these in later posts), can enable the transformation of HTML to PDF. These tools have been typically used to produce PDF for printing – book formatted PDF. There are a few of these softwares out there but most are proprietary and only a handful of them have been Open Source (notably BookJS that I was involved in a long time ago, and CaSSius). Vivliostyle is the latest in this family tree, the root category of which I would describe as an HTML Pagination Engine.
What it does is this – it takes an HTML file and paginates it. It flows the HTML through the ‘boxes’ (pages) you have defined and lays the content out nicely in each box, one box after the other, flowing all the content through it with the right margins (and more, see below). So instead of scrolling through the web page, you page through the document on screen. Vivliostyle converts the HTML into ‘pages’. It is an HTML pagination engine.
It is then possible to do a lot more with these pages, including adding page numbers, using CSS (the style rules used by browsers) to define the look and feel of text and images(etc), adding headers, notes and footers etc. In other words, you can add to each page everything you need to make the result ‘look like a book’.
Since the browser can also print PDF, then you can take this newly styled ‘book looking’ HTML and print it to PDF from the browser. From this, you have a book-formatted PDF that is ready to send to the printer to be printed and bound. I’ve worked this way for many years and printed many books this way for organisations from the World Bank to Cisco. The system works and the printed books look great. Vivliostyle is, at this point, the most sophisticated open source tool for doing this.
It is pretty amazing stuff. From HTML to PDF to printed book at the press of a button. Magic. This process is also catching on. Hachette produce their trade paperbacks using an HTML-to-PDF rendering engine with styling via CSS. So it is no longer a process reserved for small experimental players.
So, why is this interesting? Well, it is interesting almost without an explanation! Transforming HTML in this manner seems pretty magical and it’s kinda neat just to look at the demos and marvel at it. However, the really interesting part comes into play when we start talking about workflows. This is where Vivliostyle can be part of transforming publishing workflows.
As a publisher, if you were to take Vivliostyle ‘out of the box’ it would not be of much use to you. How many web pages do you have that you want to turn into PDF? Not many, if any. How much of your book or journal content in your current workflow is stored in HTML? Probably none. In all likelihood, HTML in your business is restricted to your website and, perhaps, EPUB if you produce them (EPUB is just a zip archive containing HTML files and some other stuff). But in most publisher’s workflows the EPUB is an end-of-line format. Publishers take the completed copy in MS Word, or (sometimes, regrettably) PDF, and send it to a vendor (typically in India) to transform into EPUB and send back. So chances are, HTML is not the format being used as the basis for your book or journal workflows (apart from possibly being an end-of-line format).
As a publisher, you don’t have manuscript copy in HTML, so Vivliostyle is not going to fit snuggly into your workflow. In order to utilise it, you need to transform the way that you work. You have to start working in HTML or, more difficultly, work in some format that can transform into a very tightly controlled HTML output so that Vivliostyle can work with it.
I don’t like the latter style of workflow. This is where you work in something like XML (of some sort) and then transform to HTML at the end of the process. It’s ugly workflow, not friendly for non-techie users and typically full of workflow redundancy. If you want good HTML, then just work with, and in, HTML. This comes with additional benefits since from good HTML you can get to any format you want PLUS you have the advantage of now being able to move your workflow into the browser. And this is where Vivliostyle fits into a toolset, an approach, that could transform how you work – the HTML-first production environment.
The current ‘state of the nation’ in publishing is pretty terrible. Most publishers use MS Word docx as their document format, and Track Changes and email are their primary workflow tools. This means that there is a single document of record – the collection of Word files. These are shareable, in the sense that you can email people copies, but you cannot have multiple people simultaneously accessing them at the same time. In effect, the MS Word files are like digital paper in the worst possible way. There is only one ‘up to date’ version and only one person that can work on that version while they hold onto the files. There is no easy way to follow a document’s history, revert to specific versions, or identify who made what change when. Further, there is no inherent backup strategy built into standalone MS Word files. Everything must be done manually. That means organizing the files in directory structures with naming conventions that are known by only those in the know (since there is no standard way of doing this). There are also problems with email as a collaboration tool. Did it send? Did they get it? Did they get the right version? Plus there is no way of understanding the status of the documents unless you ask via email or there is some other system that is manually updated for status tracking. The system is not transparent. Further, changing workflows when using systems like this, even for small optimisations, is quite difficult and the larger the team the more difficult it gets.
Additionally, using Word and email like this is really placing unnecessary gateway mechanisms on the content. If I have the up-to-date versions then you can’t have them or work on them. There is really only one copy and only one person can work on it. That makes for linear workflows and strongly delineated roles. No one can ‘jump in and help’ and it is very difficult to alter the linearity of the process or redistribute the labor to achieve efficiencies.
If publishing is to move on, then workflows need to migrate to the browser. With browser-based workflows, there is no need to have multiple copies of the same file, versioning is taken care of as is document history, it is easy to add and remove people from the process, and labor can be better distributed over both roles and time to create more elegant, efficient, workflows. I wrote about this in an earlier post and will write more in posts to come since there is a lotmore to it. But suffice to say that publishing workflows to the browser is a little like ‘sucking all the gaps’ out of the current Word-email workflows (plus a whole lot of other benefits). No more checking your Inbox while you wait for status updates or someone to send you the files so you, and you alone, can work on the next little part of the process while everyone else waits. Additionally, there can be full transparency as to what needs to be, has been, and is being done (and by whom). There is the opportunity to break down larger tasks into smaller tasks and have them all in play concurrently. There is the opportunity to share the same tools and hence enhance communication and redistribute the work to where (who) it makes most sense. There is so much to be gained.
This is not to say that browser-based workflows are ‘anything goes’ workflows (which is what most publishers think this way of working amounts to). You can still assert rules of who has access and when. But… in my experience, when you migrate workflows to the browser then publishers start rethinking how they work and you often hear comments like “but we don’t need to do it like that anymore’…They then start designing radically better workflows themselves.
So, the point of all this is that Vivliostyle by itself does not achieve this. It is not, in itself, a workflow tool for publishers. You first need all the other things that enable an HTML-first workflow to be in place and once they are there, then you can utilize Vivliostyle to transform the HTML (at the push of a button) to the PDF you need for printing. That is the radical improvement Vivliostyle can offer. Cut out the file conversion vendors and render the content according to templated style sheets (automated typesetting can produce beautiful results). This means you can check what the book will look like at any moment, plus the CSS stylesheets you use can also be included in your EPUBs (also rendered at the push of a button since the original content is already in HTML, the content filetype for EPUB) so your printed book and the EPUB look the same.
So, Vivliostyle is a necessary tool for HTML workflows and with an HTML workflow you will radically improve what you do.
This is why Vivliostyle is important to publishers but you cannot consider it isolation. You must consider it with regard to migrating to an HTML first workflow. If you migrate to this kind of workflow then not only will you experience the efficiencies described above but your organisational culture will be transformed and the types of content you can then produce will become a lot more open ended. This is the vision that Vivliostyle, and other tools that enable HTML-first workflows (including those developed by UCP and Coko), are imagining and building towards.
Dear reader, out of principle, I do not use proprietary social media platforms and networks. So, if you like this content, please use your channels to promote it – email it to a friend (for example). Many thanks! Adam