EPAC’08 Technical Post Mortem J. Poole. 2 Editing at EPAC 2006 Basic assumption is that expert...

EPAC’08Technical Post Mortem

J. Poole

EPAC08 Technical PM, TM KEK, November 2008, J. Poole 2

Editing at EPAC 2006

• Basic assumption is that expert editors can edit an average of 35 papers per day.

• Started pre-conference processing Thursday AM in the conference centre.

• High percentage of papers submitted by the deadline (Wednesday 21 June midnight)


Paper Submission (file upload)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

24/0

5/06

25/0

5/06

26/0

5/06

27/0

5/06

28/0

5/06

29/0

5/06

30/0

5/06

31/0

5/06

01/0

6/06

02/0

6/06

03/0

6/06

04/0

6/06

05/0

6/06

06/0

6/06

07/0

6/06

08/0

6/06

09/0

6/06

10/0

6/06

11/0

6/06

12/0

6/06

13/0

6/06

14/0

6/06

15/0

6/06

16/0

6/06

17/0

6/06

18/0

6/06

19/0

6/06

20/0

6/06

21/0

6/06

22/0

6/06

23/0

6/06

24/0

6/06

25/0

6/06

26/0

6/06

27/0

6/06

28/0

6/06

29/0

6/06

30/0

6/06

01/0

7/06

02/0

7/06

03/0

7/06

04/0

7/06

05/0

7/06

06/0

7/06

07/0

7/06

08/0

7/06

09/0

7/06

10/0

7/06

11/0

7/06

12/0

7/06

13/0

7/06

14/0

7/06

15/0

7/06

16/0

7/06

17/0

7/06

18/0

7/06

19/0

7/06

20/0

7/06

21/0

7/06

22/0

7/06

23/0

7/06

24/0

7/06

25/0

7/06

26/0

7/06


Papers Processed per Day

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

22/0

6/20

0623

/06/

2006

24/0

6/20

0625

/06/

2006

26/0

6/20

0627

/06/

2006

28/0

6/20

0629

/06/

2006

30/0

6/20

0601

/07/

2006

02/0

7/20

0603

/07/

2006

04/0

7/20

0605

/07/

2006

06/0

7/20

0607

/07/

2006

08/0

7/20

0609

/07/

2006

10/0

7/20

0611

/07/

2006

12/0

7/20

0613

/07/

2006

14/0

7/20

0615

/07/

2006

16/0

7/20

0617

/07/

2006

18/0

7/20

0619

/07/

2006

20/0

7/20

0621

/07/

2006

22/0

7/20

0623

/07/

2006

24/0

7/20

0625

/07/

2006

26/0

7/20

0627

/07/

2006

28/0

7/20

0629

/07/

2006

30/0

7/20

0631

/07/

2006

01/0

8/20

0602

/08/

2006

03/0

8/20

0604

/08/

2006

05/0

8/20

0606

/08/

2006

07/0

8/20

0608

/08/

2006


Processing Stats.

EPAC08 Technical PM, TM KEK, November 2008, J. Poole

Dotting Statistics

6

10%

40%

50%


New Features

• An equation editor was used by word which had its own fonts. It displayed fine on screen but would not print either to PS or PCL.

• No solution found.• Exploding diagrams (not really new)

– Needed Word 2007 to make a PS file which was OK.

7


Template Problems

• Borders around Fig. 1 in the Word 2007 template are missing

• The line above the footnote was frequently missing in submitted papers.

• People used the recipe for inserting figures using tables but forgot to turn off the borders.

8


SPMS Problems

• In the editors list of active papers, the show log option only works for the last one on the page.

• Uploading of transparencies (PDF etc.) causes the status (dot) to become unassigned.

9


Possible Improvements

• Install 2 generic PS drivers – one for A4 and one for Letter.

• Test the whole setup before cloning– Wrong joboptions used– Generic driver not set up correctly and had ambiguous

name

10


What was good

• Download a zipped package of all files is very useful, particularly for LaTeX.

• Autodistill saved a little time• ‘You have not finished your submission’ message

when no PostScript file reduced volume of yellows.• Very few post-deadline submissions (~7%)

11


Potential Improvements

• Review and approve yellows through SPMS – Download PDF– Accept editor version via SPMS

• Move to Word 2007

12


Processing Performance

• We did not expect so many papers in the early stages of planning but we decided to stick with our original manpower estimates for editors because this is limited by budget.

• Pre-conference processing was hard work for 9 editors:• Thursday 200 papers• Friday 325 papers• Saturday 389 papers 916 (average 34 c.f. 35 papers per day per

editor)• Leaving enough for training of new editors (1200 papers finally)• Started QA early in the week and completed it before the end of the

conference.

14

Platforms and Software

LaTeX29%

Word (PC)65%

Word (Mac)6%

Windows82%

Mac8%

Unix10%


Processing Problems

49 (32)% Format Probs. – doesn’t match template

20 (24)% Other

10 (12)% No Postscript File

(6)% Title not in uppercase

4 (6)% Font Problems

(4)% Bad format in references

7 (4)% A4 printed on US Paper or vice-versa

8 (4)% Unusable Files

1 (2)% Type 3 Fonts (LaTeX)

(2)% Footnote outside margin

(1)% Too many pages

(1)% Colour lost in figures

0.4 (.3)% Slow Graphics

(.25)% Blank last page

0.1 (.25)% Multiple PS Files

(.2)% PDF file not PS

Comparison with EPAC’06


Conclusions

• The latest Word software has a few ‘new’ problems but the tools at our disposal to fix problems are even more powerful.

• New templates have helped to improve the quality of authors’ contributions but there is still more work to do.

• We can see from the analysis where the problems are and we should concentrate our efforts on providing tools and education to reduce them.

• Changing how we handle yellow dots could save time and effort.

EPAC’08 Technical Post Mortem J. Poole. 2 Editing at EPAC 2006 Basic assumption is that expert...

Documents

Transcript of EPAC’08 Technical Post Mortem J. Poole. 2 Editing at EPAC 2006 Basic assumption is that expert...