Figures (Screenshots with Callouts) - Create Externally or Internally?

[_Steve_Shapiro_]

Hello All,

I use several programs for creating technical documents, including FrameMaker, Word, OpenOffice Writer, and recently Tex/LaTeX. I usually import graphics (png files) by reference and use built-in tools to add callouts to screenshots for figures.

When using LaTeX I create the figures using Scribus or Illustrator, export an EPS file, and either import the EPS figure or create a PDF from the EPS and then import the PDF figure.

This technique works fine and I am now thinking about using this method for all applications instead of importing a graphic by reference and adding callouts with the built-in tools. It is a bit more time consuming, but I like the idea of being able to use the figures in multiple programs over time without having to recreate them within each application.

I am looking for opinions/feedback on the good vs bad points of each method.

Thanks,

Steve

[_Van_Kurtz_]

Steve,

I create the callouts in Illustrator, because I have better control on how I can draw the lines, arrows, etc. I also do not like the drawing tools in FrameMaker.

I have heard that localization houses prefer the callouts be made in FrameMaker, because it makes it easier for them to translate them. But on the other hand, they have the tools to open the Illustrator files and translate the callouts. A little extra work for them, but they can do it.

Another approach that some people use is to create the callouts in Illustrator but use numbers or numbers in circles as the callout text, NOT the text itself. Then in FrameMaker insert a list or table below the figure that links that callout text to the numbers. This has the advantage of NOT having to use FrameMaker's tools for adding the callouts and still have the text within the Frame document. Of course, each time you use the illustration, you need to add or copy/paste the list/table.

Hope this helps,
Van

[Art Campbell]

I'd strongly second Van's approach, of using key numbers in the illustration itself and mapping those to an in-the-text caption or table.

It's especially useful if you have anyone editing the document who isn't graphics-savvy (translators, for instance), and it also saves you from having to burden the graphic with too much text. And you can hook in index markers, cross-refs, etc.

If I were you, I'd make it SOP to keep the callouts on a separate layer in Illustrator or whatever, so you can shut them off or rearrange them easily.

Art

[_Thomas_Michanek_]

Let me try to summarize the good(+)/bad(-) points for you:

Method 1: Create images without call-outs, add call-outs in
each authoring tool:

+ Good for images that may be imported at varying sizes,
since the call-outs won't be resized with the image
+ Good for images that you may wish to use without call-outs
+ Possible to have different call-outs in different documents
+ May be easier if you need to translate textual call-outs

- Call-outs need to be re-inserted in each tool/document
- Call-out appearance may differ due to different tool capabilities


Method 2: Create images with call-outs directly in graphic software:

+ Only need to insert call-outs once
+ Call-outs will look the same in all documents

- Resizing the image will also resize the call-outs
- Images will always have call-outs, and the same call-outs in all docs
- Translators will need to translate text in two different places
(body text in document, textual call-outs in images)


For translation purposes, it's always better to use numbered or
alphanumeric-coded call-outs and add the actual call-out text
outside the image (in the document). For method 1, this requires
all call-out codes to always be the same.


So, if you *always* will have the same call-outs for an image,
and all (or most) images always will be imported at the same
relative size, method 2 may be the way to go.
If you think you may want to use some images without call-outs,
or have different call-outs in some documents, or size the
images differently within a document, then method 1 may be best.

--
/Thomas Michanek