If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:25:54 -0400, schrieb Neil:
Bottom line is this: hand them an Illustrator file and pay the print shop for doing manual layout. The good news is that, for the very first time, thanks to Paul's work, and that of other purposefully helpful people, we /can/ hand them an Adobe Illustrator file, from Windows at least. This shop is on the Mac, as you might imagine, where I asked the same question of rec.photo.digital, but it went absolutely nowhere since the Apple users tend to not be helpful no matter what question is asked. http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital *Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?* https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/zdVFRNwhdA8/UXTcwOiUBgAJ http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10 *Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?* http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1103517 Given that it has been proven that almost any technical question asked on the Apple newsgroups over the past two decades tends to devolve into childish drivel almost instantly, I hesitate to ask the Mac users this basic Windows-to-Mac question which your suggestion invariably involves: Q: If I download the Adobe Illustrator software that Paul pointed me to, and if I create an output file from Adobe Illustrator on Windows, can the Mac Adobe Illustrator read that in, and use the embedded fonts? |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:06:23 -0400, schrieb Wolf K:
I apologize if I didn't mention yet that I know absolutely nothing about Adobe Illustrator. [...] That was clear from the subject question. Wolf, *I presume you are an adult.* I presume /all/ the adults on this thread /knew/ that I never once said or implied that I was an expert, and, in fact, an expert would never have asked this question, since he would have /known/ the answer a priori. Hence ... I have to ask again if you are an adult. The reason I ask is that you don't seem to /act/ like an adult should. I only speak facts. Please understand, I am not trying to insult you. I'm not. *I'm trying to keep this thread focused on purposefully helpful posts.* I'm trying to ensure that everyone here, including you and me, don't have to suffer the childish retorts that help nobody that you seem to thrive upon. Please take this as helpful, adult advice. thanks! |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Fri, 30 Mar 2018 18:47:09 -0400, schrieb Paul:
Illustrator uses a dual representation for internal usage. Hi Paul, Thanks for that clarification, where, we have two problems in the file format, and, where all of us have spent *decades* dealing with inconsistencies in converting one file format to another (remember EDIF, Electronic Data Interchange Format for example?). Even *text* files have inconsistencies between the platforms, as you're well aware, where I appreciate the clarification so I will state that PDF is still the right answer given the circumstances, but that PDF may or may not necessarily be the "native" format of AI, despite this direct quote from that reference you so kindly located. How to edit PDF files in Adobe Illustrator http://blog.globalizationpartners.com/using-pdf-in-illustrator-when-source-files-are-lost.aspx "the native Adobe Illustrator file format (*.AI) is PDF, and as such it is one of the best applications supporting direct import/export to PDF." So when we say it "imported" the PDF, it's like it is receiving "half" of a .ai file. And the way Illustrator behaves suggests it doesn't do quite the same parsing. But I can tell you it does a better job than LibreOffice does of "importing" PDF. Thanks for that helpful clarification Paul, where what I really think is important is how Adobe Illustrator handles the "embedded fonts* in the PDF file. It's also possible that the content of .ai has changed over the years. The Wikipedia article may have more details, if that's important. I agree Paul, as we're all in our 80s, 70s, and 60s, which means we've all seen hundreds if not many thousands of incompatible file issues between software, and even versions of the same software. At this point, I don't have the equipment to test out all those potential file incompatibilities, where the only two formats that are going to practically matter in this situation a a. Windows Powerpoint to PDF to Mac Adobe Illistrator, or, b. Windows PowerPoint to PDF to Windows AI to Mac Adobe Illustrator. Whichever one works best & with embedded fonts is the way that is best. In other words, we have to be a little wary about using the word "native". Yes, there might be some PDF constructs inside the file, but you'd need a pretty detailed book on the topic to understand just what is inside a modern .ai file. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Illustrator_Artwork To be clear, I didn't use the word "native" originally, where the quote from that reference used the word native, and I simply mirrored what they said, presuming they knew far more than I do. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
In message , Ragnusen Ultred
writes: [LOTS snipped] *In the end, there is only one simple technical question being asked:* Q: What format can PPT output that AI can suck in directly to print no-parking-style signs to vinyl with the *least* amount of manual setup required? Yes, but the simple question - whether "technical" or "social" is fairly immaterial - "is there _any_ format I can give you that will avoid you having to do the 'manual layout' stage, or are you going to do that anyway?" _does_ need asking of the "shop", and I can't see how any complications of what your relationship with them is should prevent you asking it. Or, perhaps more simply, "Do you ever _not_ charge for the 'manual layout' stage?" Yes, that's probably a simpler question to ask. You mentioned that on a previous occasion you were _surprised_ (and I think a little cross) that they'd charged you for that stage. This _implied_ that there might be circumstances when they might not, or that you had _thought_ there were. This needs clarifying before we/you/they/whoever get into _any_ *technical* discussions. _Please_ keep your answer short (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
In message , Ragnusen Ultred
writes: [] Please understand, I am not trying to insult you. I'm not. [] No, you can do that without trying. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Sat, 31 Mar 2018 02:36:06 +0100, schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):
No, you can do that without trying. What I try to do is swat away the brainless gnats at the picnic, because if you let them, the annoying gnats will ruin any thread they infest. Truth be told, the thread is ruined the second these annoying gnats show up, but I still try to swat them away as nicely as I can. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Sat, 31 Mar 2018 02:35:14 +0100, schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):
Yes, but the simple question - whether "technical" or "social" is fairly immaterial - "is there _any_ format I can give you that will avoid you having to do the 'manual layout' stage, or are you going to do that anyway?" _does_ need asking of the "shop", and I can't see how any complications of what your relationship with them is should prevent you asking it. Or, perhaps more simply, "Do you ever _not_ charge for the 'manual layout' stage?" Yes, that's probably a simpler question to ask. You mentioned that on a previous occasion you were _surprised_ (and I think a little cross) that they'd charged you for that stage. This _implied_ that there might be circumstances when they might not, or that you had _thought_ there were. This needs clarifying before we/you/they/whoever get into _any_ *technical* discussions. _Please_ keep your answer short (-: Up until now, I didn't have the software, but Paul provided a link to the software, so now, for the first time, I can /test/ out the answer. TEST 1: I install the free Adobe Illustrator on Windows and I suck in the 12"x18" PDF from PowerPoint with embedded fonts, and I run the AI CutContour command plus any other manual layout commands that are forced upon me, and I output an Adobe Illustrator AI file for each of the score of signs. TEST 2: I then try to find out whether *that* Windows AI file can be read directly into the latest Mac Adobe Illustrator, which I've asked separately here. Can the latest Mac Adobe Illustrator read in Windows Adobe Illustrator CS2 "ai-format" files? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/xiJFl-xbD1o -- Was that short enough, and yet still detailed enough to be correct? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
In message , Ragnusen Ultred
writes: Am Sat, 31 Mar 2018 02:35:14 +0100, schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John): Yes, but the simple question - whether "technical" or "social" is fairly immaterial - "is there _any_ format I can give you that will avoid you having to do the 'manual layout' stage, or are you going to do that anyway?" _does_ need asking of the "shop", and I can't see how any complications of what your relationship with them is should prevent you asking it. Or, perhaps more simply, "Do you ever _not_ charge for the 'manual layout' stage?" Yes, that's probably a simpler question to ask. You mentioned that on a previous occasion you were _surprised_ (and I think a little cross) that they'd charged you for that stage. This _implied_ that there might be circumstances when they might not, or that you had _thought_ there were. This needs clarifying before we/you/they/whoever get into _any_ *technical* discussions. _Please_ keep your answer short (-: Up until now, I didn't have the software, but Paul provided a link to the software, so now, for the first time, I can /test/ out the answer. TEST 1: I install the free Adobe Illustrator on Windows and I suck in the 12"x18" PDF from PowerPoint with embedded fonts, and I run the AI CutContour command plus any other manual layout commands that are forced upon me, and I output an Adobe Illustrator AI file for each of the score of signs. TEST 2: I then try to find out whether *that* Windows AI file can be read directly into the latest Mac Adobe Illustrator, which I've asked separately here. Can the latest Mac Adobe Illustrator read in Windows Adobe Illustrator CS2 "ai-format" files? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/xiJFl-xbD1o -- Was that short enough, and yet still detailed enough to be correct? You've missed the point. Which is that you need to establish whether they're going to do the layout stage whatever format you give them, and charge you for it - or to put it more simply, whether they ever _don't_ charge for that stage (whether needed or not). NOT really a technical question. If the answer is that they always charge for it regardless of what they're given, then there's no point in wasting any more of anyone's time - certainly not ours. And I _don't_ see why the nature of your relationship with them should affect whether you can ask that question; certainly if you can't, I'm not going to bother with this thread any more. So: 1. Can you ask that question ("do you ever not charge for layout")? 2. *and only if the answer to 1. is yes* "under what circumstance?" When we know the answers to these, _then_ we can proceed. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we should take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Sat, 31 Mar 2018 08:46:36 -0400, schrieb Wolf K:
I'm certainly older than you, and have seen enough doofuses to know one when I see one. Have a good day. I shouldn't have to explain to a fellow octogenarian that it's your actions which define whether you act like an adult or a child, not your chronological age. Your actions above, are clear to all, what your mental age appears to be. The point is that you're supposed to: a. Be purposefully helpful, and, b. To add some *value* to the thread My only reason for pointing this out is that the gnats will ruin the picnic if you let them, and then nobody benefits from the discussion. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Sat, 31 Mar 2018 10:05:16 +0100, schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):
You've missed the point. Which is that you need to establish whether they're going to do the layout stage whatever format you give them, and charge you for it - or to put it more simply, whether they ever _don't_ charge for that stage (whether needed or not). I understand your concern, and your objections, and your clarification, where the /simplest/ way I can say this is that, because of personalities, asking the shop /anything/ is an exercise in futility. What I need to do is /understand/ first what /needs/ to be done. Period. Once I run through the process, I will then /understand/ why /any/ manual layout would need to be done. Shop or no shop - that /understanding/ should transcend any shop. It's really that simple. NOT really a technical question. If the answer is that they always charge for it regardless of what they're given, then there's no point in wasting any more of anyone's time - certainly not ours. The /simplest/ way I can say this is to *ignore* the shop completely. *All that matters is what /must/ be done to get the PPT to VINYL.* If I knew that, I wouldn't be here. With the software, I will figure that out on my own, and then this thread will have solved the problem set completely. The problem you want me to explain is the mentality of kids, which I am not qualified to do, since that takes a child psychologist to understand why the kids in the shop don't care one whit about automation. They just do /everything/ manually. And I _don't_ see why the nature of your relationship with them should affect whether you can ask that question; certainly if you can't, I'm not going to bother with this thread any more. I think the simplest solution is to ignore the shop. I can tell you that the shop isn't at all concerned with this problem. They'll take anything. They don't care. They will take scrawlings on the back side of a napkin. They are just kids. They can barely communicate as it is. The issue is just that I don't /understand/ why they can't just print it, and they /insist/ they have to lay it out manually for each sign. I think that's crazy. Nobody else thinks that is crazy. So it's just me, asking /why/ they have to manually do anything. So: 1. Can you ask that question ("do you ever not charge for layout")? 2. *and only if the answer to 1. is yes* "under what circumstance?" When we know the answers to these, _then_ we can proceed. I do understand that you consider this a 'normal' commercial action, but we're dealing 100% with high-school kids who don't have the concept of efficiency. It's like my old secretary (admins nowadays) who would do everything manually. She's make a change to a spreadsheet a thousand times, where it never occurred to her to write a macro. It's exactly like that. The people doing the work don't have the /concept/ of efficiency. If we remove the kids from the equation, all we need to do is /understand/ why /anyone/ would need to do /anything/ manual in this process. Just like with the secretary, for whom I would write a script to do automatically what she did manually a thousand times, I need to first understand what steps need to be done manually, and then I'll eliminate those manual steps. I can't tell the secretary how to eliminate the steps. I have to eliminate them for her. And then I tell her how to do the job using the macro,. Same here. The kids will /never/ not do everything manually unless I show them how. It's just not in their bones. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & withfonts?
On 3/31/2018 10:54 AM, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
Am Sat, 31 Mar 2018 08:46:36 -0400, schrieb Wolf K: I'm certainly older than you, and have seen enough doofuses to know one when I see one. Have a good day. I shouldn't have to explain to a fellow octogenarian that it's your actions which define whether you act like an adult or a child, not your chronological age. From my perspective, your actions have not established your supposed chronological age, either. Why else would you ignore solutions in deference to pursuing an approach that will result in the same charges that you claim to want to eliminate? Why else would you consider the opinions of someone who may know how to use a search engine, but doesn't even claim to understand the results of the search over those of one who has owned and operated a graphic arts business for almost 50 years? Why else would you come up with an argument to avoid asking the pro-level questions that another contributor outlined that would also lead to either a reduction in costs or a good reason to change suppliers? The adults among us can reasonably conclude that your intent with these actions is to perpetuate the discussion rather than solve your "problem", and that is about as far from adult behavior as one gets. -- best regards, Neil |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Sat, 31 Mar 2018 16:16:45 -0400, schrieb Neil:
From my perspective, your actions have not established your supposed chronological age, either. Fair enough observation. We've all been on Usenet for as long as it has existed. I must agree that the mere fact that I /respond/ to the trolls such as Wolf clearly was, is dropping down to their level, which, we all know that they have more experience in. I have to repeat what I've said a thousand times to accusations to not "feed" the trolls, that the model of ignoring them works best in the chit-chat model of Usenet that most of you use. I don't use the chit-chat model. I use the Q&A model. The chit-chat model is sort of like walking along a trail, where you can take any trail you want since you're not seeking a specific spot, where if there are gnats buzzing about, you can just walk in another direction and still accomplish your goals. The Q&A model is sort of like a picnic, where you stay on one place and where, if the gnats infest the thread, you have to swat them away as well as you can, although once they infest the picnic, it's already doomed, but you do the best to can to get rid of them. Why else would you ignore solutions in deference to pursuing an approach that will result in the same charges that you claim to want to eliminate? You've got to be kidding. Really. You have to be incredibly naieve to say that, since you *know* I'm committed to /testing/ out the solution that Paul provided, and you know that I've already asked the shop and the kids don't even understand the question. How can you /possibly/ say what you just said? I've responded to every reasonable suggestion. Every single one. Why else would you consider the opinions of someone who may know how to use a search engine, but doesn't even claim to understand the results of the search over those of one who has owned and operated a graphic arts business for almost 50 years? The problem here has already been almost completely solved. Are you saying we don't already have the solution? I'm confused by what you're saying we ignored. Please clarify, since we already said that we're implementing /all/ the suggested solutions that stand a chance of working. For example, if you say "don't use Powerpoint", that's a solution that stands zero chance of working under the given circumstances. Likewise, if you say "don't use Mac Adobe Illustrator", or don't do vinyle printouts, as that stands a zero chance of working too. I don't get to decide those two end points. I only get to decide what connects that start and end point. Why else would you come up with an argument to avoid asking the pro-level questions that another contributor outlined that would also lead to either a reduction in costs or a good reason to change suppliers? We are dealing with kids here. High school kids. They don't even /understand/ the concept of skipping manual steps. As I explained already in another location, it's like dealing with my secretary (now called admins) in the 80s and 90s who would do a task a thousand times, instead of learning how to write a macro so that it's efficiently done. She'd just do the manual task a thousand times. It would never occur to her to pick up a book on Visual Basic or Macros or whatever, to shorten the task from 1000 to 1. It just isn't in her head. It's the same with these kids. It would /never/ occur to them /not/ to do every sign's layout manually. It's just not in their heads. I'm not the psychology you need me to be in order to get a coherent answer out of them why they don't go to the trouble of figuring out how to shorted the steps from 1000 to 1. I'm just not. Their brand of psychology is foreign to mine. It just is. The adults among us can reasonably conclude that your intent with these actions is to perpetuate the discussion rather than solve your "problem", and that is about as far from adult behavior as one gets. You have a fair enough assessment but you completely whooshed on the difference in being "responsive" to each post and actually solving the problem. They're two different things. I'm being responsive to your post right now, but your post that I'm responding to has nearly zero chance of being helpful to solve the problem because we /already/ solved the problem (mostly with Paul's research). For you to know that we solved the problem, and then for you to bring up new issues, mostly that we didn't explore every possible avenue, is doing exactly what you're complaining about. That is, if I respond to your complaints, that just perpetuates this thread. Do you see that? Remember, we already solved the problem in that we know what the approach needs to be, which requires a copy of the tools to test it out for feasibility. That will take time. So me responding to your issues just "perpetuates" the thread, as you noted, and yet, moves us no further toward the solution, since you feel the solution is in these high school kids, and I already know that I don't have the power to change the psychology of someone else's kids. You think I have that power to change the psychology of someone else's kids - but I don't. So I understand that you /think/ that I have this power, and since you know I'm not exercising that power that you think I have, that I'm not evaluating your proposed solution. But I already evaluated it. It's not possible. It's just not. Having said that, your concern about the "perpetuation" of this thread is valid, where me responding to your concerns, or to anyone's concerns at this point, isn't going to help - since I have a lot of work ahead of me to test out the proposed solution from Paul, which is the only proposal that stands a chance of working (IMHO). So, to /address/ your concerns about the perpetuation of this thread, THIS IS MY LAST POST TO THIS THREAD UNTIL I TEST OUT THE WORKABLE PROPOSED SOLUTION. That should solve your issue, should it not? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
In message , Ragnusen Ultred
writes: [] The kids will /never/ not do everything manually unless I show them how. It's just not in their bones. So, the answer to my question is: they will always do the manual stage, whatever you give them. But you _might_ be able to persuade them not to if you can _show_ them. I don't think we need to discuss any more until you've: 1. Had a play with the Adobe Illustrator you've downloaded; 2. determined whether you think you can skip the "manual layout stage" (this implies 1a. understood what they _mean_ by "the manual layout stage" 3. (if 2 is "yes") persuaded them to let you show them. (Where "they" is "the shop" or "the kids" or whatever.) Can we take a break until you've done these 3 (or 4)? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf They don't seem to want to blind me with science nor to impress me with their superior intellect, but just to share their enthusiasm for their subject. (Appreciative) contributor to Radio Times letters page, 26 July-1 August 2014 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
Am Sun, 1 Apr 2018 01:42:30 +0100, schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):
Hi John, I already told Neil it was my last post until I have something to report, so I'm just responding to your questions, and then I will back out until I have the process figured out based on what Paul already explained. (Basically Paul already did what I need to do, but the software downloads keep crapping out - I'm on an extremely slow over-the-air link.) So, the answer to my question is: they will always do the manual stage, whatever you give them. I think the answer to that is "no", but I'm not a psychologist, so, I'd say that your assumption they'll lay it out every time is accurate ... unless .... unless ... unless, like with my secretary long ago ... I show them how to do it manually. Just as with the secretary, once I wrote the macro, she was happy to *use* that macro, she would never have written the macro on her own. So, while I admit I'm not a teen psychologist, I "think" the teens will *use* whatever I tell them to use, if it works for them. (If it doesn't work, they won't use it and they'll fall back to their old ways.) Again, your observation is reasonable even though I disagree since nobody knows what someone else will do when shown a 'better' way, but nothing will change, for sure, ... unless ... unless I show them a better way. I can't show them that better way until I understand it myself. And, for that, I have to do what Paul did - so - I won't add any value here until I do that - so I'm just answering your concerns. But you _might_ be able to persuade them not to if you can _show_ them. Oh, Yes. (I respond inline.) You do understand very well, John. Thanks. Yes. If I show them the light, I *hope* to persuade them. It just boggles my mind that anyone would do layout when the layout is already done. I don't think we need to discuss any more until you've: 1. Had a play with the Adobe Illustrator you've downloaded; 2. determined whether you think you can skip the "manual layout stage" (this implies 1a. understood what they _mean_ by "the manual layout stage" 3. (if 2 is "yes") persuaded them to let you show them. (Where "they" is "the shop" or "the kids" or whatever.) Can we take a break until you've done these 3 (or 4)? Yes. Good idea. I ran the download a couple of times and it keeps timing out, so, I don't know if that techspot site is just crap or if it's my admittedly slow over-the-air connection, but I'm trying again to get the software. Thank you for always adding value. *I won't post back until/unless I get something to post back.* -- (However, if someone asks a direct question like you did ... I will answer their questions out of courtesy.) |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Can Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint & with fonts?
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:43:19 -0700, Ragnusen Ultred
wrote: I ran the download a couple of times and it keeps timing out, so, I don't know if that techspot site is just crap or if it's my admittedly slow over-the-air connection, but I'm trying again to get the software. Back when more of us were on slow connections, programs like Free Download Manager were essential. Everyone had a download manager, and that one was, by far, the most popular since it was free. I just checked and I see that it's still actively being developed and they've added all but the kitchen sink, but its ability to "resume broken downloads" was incredibly useful back in the day. https://www.freedownloadmanager.org |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|