The same words don't get across? Differences in communication between the web and paper
- What a web production company discovered after publishing a book -

Even though we've met at meetings many times, we've never had this kind of conversation (laughs).

Yes. This is the first time I've heard of it. What about you, Terada-san?

I run an editorial production company. I was originally an editor at a publishing company, making computer-related books and magazines. After that, I decided to go independent, and I started working with Nishida-san through an introduction from a fellow editor. Now, about 70% of my work is computer and IT-related, and 30% is general business books.

When we received the proposal and decided to "make a book," we gathered people who wanted to write in the CF department and formed a project team. There, we shared the proposal we received and called out "what you want to write, what you should write, and what you can write" with the aim of "coding quickly and accurately," and each person came up with ideas.
Then, in order to "code quickly and accurately," "direction" and "planning" became important, and our understanding changed to "not only guidelines and technical matters, but also advance preparation and progress management are necessary."

At the beginning, the editor will give the author a very rough idea of what the book is about, and as they work out the details, it often ends up including unexpected content. This was a prime example of that, as the keyword "direction" came up at the very beginning, which was a perspective that we had never considered before, and I thought, "This book is going to be good."

We came up with a list of items for seven people, about two A4 pages, and showed it to Nishida-san to discuss how to proceed. We also discussed, "What do you think about the perspective of direction?"

It is a great pleasure for authors to expand on the original plan proposed by the editors. The important thing is to give the plan breadth, so we told them to "include all the elements that the people in the field think are important."
Another thing that I thought was great at the time was the idea of "deciding what needs to be done and what doesn't need to be done." I had never worked with that mindset before, so it was a fresh experience for me.

From there, I divided it into major, medium and minor categories, and assigned the writing tasks to my areas of expertise...

Around September.

The original plan was to write it in September and October, proofread it in November and December, and deliver it in January, with a release date in February.

At that point, I felt that one person could not handle things like organizing the manuscripts and managing the progress, so I asked Terada to join the team.

yes.

However, each of them was unable to write their manuscript as they had hoped...

I usually write articles for the Monosasu site and CF News, so I thought I could write it as an extension of that. But when I actually started writing, the volume was different, the flow wasn't good, and I didn't know what to write next.
CF News is packed tightly into the space of an A4 sheet of paper, so if I could write freely about the things I couldn't fit in there, or the things I cut out, I thought it would become one article, and if I had about 10 of those, it would make one chapter. So I thought I could write it if the items were decided, but it turns out that's not the case.

He encouraged us to "just put out the results," and the whole team started to feel like "just put it out, put it out, put it out." However, it was already November at that point.

The deadline was actually October, but it became November, and I thought, "Isn't this bad?" After discussing it with the team, we decided to give it until the end of December, but I still couldn't finish it, so it ended up being mid- or late-January.

As of the end of January, all items had some sort of manuscript attached to them.

If it's your first time writing, it can be difficult to get a sense of the volume. The amount of text that fits on one page, illustrations such as conceptual diagrams, and other things are hard to convey even if you explain them verbally or in emails, until you see them on paper.
For example, the way things are explained is different on the web and in paper books. On the web, the most important thing is to communicate clearly on the display, so there is a tendency to keep the number of words to a minimum and to explain things clearly with diagrams and pictures. However, on paper, it's the opposite. Explanations are made in words, and conceptual diagrams are included. Diagrams and pictures are used to complement the words.
I discussed this with Nishida and said, "I'll let you know once I've made the galley proofs," and in order to give him a real sense of what elements are necessary to communicate in a paper book, we organized the manuscript he gave us, created illustrations, and made galley proofs (DTPed and laid out in the same way as a book) and handed them to him.

And then I thought, "Wow!"

It was only when I looked at the galley proofs that I understood what Terada and Nishida meant when they said, "There aren't enough illustrations."

I was also shocked that the individual manuscripts were not connected overall, and there was no flow that wove the whole book together.

You were astonished.

I realized that this was a bigger discrepancy than I had thought.

During our meeting, the other person said "I see," so I thought I had gotten my point across, but it turns out that our understanding was different...

It was only at the final stage that we finally "understood" each other.

It wasn't that he was slacking off, he always responded sincerely, and he answered my questions politely. I also gave him feedback, but it turned out that the crucial difference between how to communicate on paper and on the web hadn't been bridged (laughs).
When that became clear to me, I asked Nishida, "Why is it that even though we're using the same words, it doesn't get across?" That's how big a difference there is between online and paper media.

For example, we like to work on things once they have become a certain sizeable block.

But the meaning of "completed" in the status "Manuscript completed" was different. When creating paper media, the production side doesn't start until the entire manuscript is completed to a certain extent. This is because you can't understand the flow of the book or what's missing unless you read it through. But when I tried it this time, I realized that web production thinks that "it can be solved by blocks." It's fine if each block is completed one by one. So, Kojima-san and Matsubara-san give me manuscripts saying, "This section, this chapter is OK," but when I put them together, it doesn't flow. That was the biggest discrepancy.

It wasn't until I received the galley proofs that I realized that my sense of it was off.

yes.

It was at that moment that I realized I needed a flow. I was worried that there were some parts that were lacking in explanations and illustrations. I wondered what to do, and then Matsubara and I decided to revise it together, and we started to rebuild it.

We identified everything that needed to be done, calculated how long it would take to make corrections, and then discussed the schedule with them.

As a result, what emerged was the diagram of the production flow in Chapter 1 of the book, "Building the production flow and environment." When we talk about improving productivity, we tend to talk about speed and technology, but if the way you work is not optimized in the first place, your productivity will not increase and you will not be able to secure time to concentrate on coding.
Matsubara's idea gave the flow of the book a shape. It was a real home run.

It was a miracle that things that were all separate came together.

I see. From there, did you go back to the flow and reconnect it with the manuscript?

that's right.

I see. Everything you needed was already included, and the contents of the chapters haven't changed completely, but it does create a consistent path overall.

The work involved shifting the completed chapters from chapter 2 to chapter 3, from chapter 4 to chapter 2, and so on.

After I realized this, I sorted it out, restructured it, and added to the manuscript. I marked it up in red ink and wrote up the parts that were not explained properly.

At this time, changes were made to almost all of the chapters. The fact that it will be written in five chapters has not changed, though.

At that time, I was honestly surprised. Because I had planned the schedule assuming that the chapters that were highly complete would proceed as they were without making any major revisions. I thought they would focus on the chapters that needed a boost. But when I opened the lid, I found that the contents of all the chapters had been changed in order to put the flow together.
In other words, in terms of editing, most of the manuscript was new. "Eh! Nishida-san! This has to be completely reorganized, and the production can't keep up," I said in a panic.

However, content-wise it was getting close to its best, and this trend couldn't be stopped, so things started to progress in a rather irregular way from then on.

The work progressed very quickly until the very end, and I stayed up all night on the morning of the data submission to make the index. Because the index can't be made unless the page count is correct, I finished checking all the text and only left the index. I thought that if I could finish checking the text at around 5am, make the index from there and send it by 9am, I would be able to manage it, but I fell asleep.

oh!

But about 30 minutes later, I was woken up by a tap on my shoulder, which woke me up with a start, only to discover that I was the only one in the office!

Yeah!

But I didn't have time to worry about that! So I made an index. Whatever it was, it helped me. I still don't know who helped me out (laughs).

It was really difficult in the end, but is there any part of the finished book that you would recommend?

I guess it's mental health-related (laughs). It's interesting to read because there are parts that apply to any job. There are also descriptions of how to proceed and communication. These are also elements that relate to any industry.
Also, there is a column on how to apologize to a client when something goes wrong (Chapter 4, p. 183). You don't usually find columns like that in technical books.

That was really pushing the boundaries. I felt like if I wrote that much, it would be okay. I like that part too.

It's all about selling. I think this book is full of all the know-how that Monosus has.

The Web is a world of screens, but the world of paper books and physical objects is different. It has weight and a different quality from the Web. It's not a question of which is better, but I thought it was good that it had a flow and was systematically organized.
In the world of the web, you can jump to the next thing with a click, you are the subject, and you can jump wherever you are interested, so the flow is not so important, and it is more important that each block is enriched and comprehensive. But a book has a flow, and it is a responsibility to deliver a story to the reader. That feeling was very refreshing to me.