Advertisement

On the Pagination of Complex Documents

  • Anne Brüggemann-Klein
  • Rolf Klein
  • Stefan Wohlfeil
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2598)

Abstract

The pagination problem of complex documents is in placing text and floating objects on pages in such a way that each object appears close to, but not before, its text reference. Current electronic formatting systems do not offer the pagination quality provided by human experts in traditional bookprinting. One reason is that a good placement of text and floating objects cannot be achieved in a single pass over the input. We show that this approach works only in a very restricted document model; but in a realistic setting no online algorithm can approximate optimal pagination quality.

Globally computing an optimal pagination critically depends on the measure of quality used. Some measures are known to render the problem NP-hard, others cause unwanted side effects. We propose to use the total number of page turns necessary for reading the document and for looking up all referenced objects. This objective function can be optimized by dynamic programming, in time proportional to the number of text blocks times the number of floating objects. Our implementation takes less than one minute for formatting a chapter of 30 pages. The results compare favorably with layouts obtained by Word, FrameMaker, or LATEX, that were fine-tuned by expert users.

Keywords

Online Algorithm Text Line Text Region Complex Document Badness Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ASHER, G. 1990. Type & Set: TEX as the Engine of a Friendly Publishing System. Pages 91–100of: CLARK, M. (ed), TEX: Applications, Uses, Methods. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood Publishers. Proceedings of the TEX88 Conference.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BELLMAN, RVICHARD. 1957. Dynamic Programming. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BRÜGGEMANN-KLEIN, A., KLEIN, R., & WOHLFEIL, S. 1996. Pagination Reconsidered. Electronic Publishing-Origination, Dissemination, and Design, 8(2&3), 139–152.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CHI82. 1982. The Chicago Manual of Style. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DYSON, MARY C., & KIPPING, GARY J. 1997. The Legibility of Screen Formats: Are Three Columns Better Than One? Computers & Graphics, 21(6), 703–712.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EFI95. 1995 (July). Wissenschaftliche Information im elektronischen Zeitalter. Stand und Erfordernisse. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht, Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst, RB-05/95/14. Available on the WWW by the URL http://www11.informatik.tumuenchen. de/EFI/. Bericht der Sachverständigenkommission zur elektronischen Fachinformation (EFI) an den Hochschulen in Bayern.
  7. 7.
    FIAT, AMOS, & WOEGINGER, GERHARD (eds). 1996. On-line Algorithms: The State of the Art. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    FURUTA, RICHARD, SCOFIELD, JEFFREY, & SHAW, ALAN. 1982. Document Formatting Systems: Survey, Concepts and Issues. Pages 133–210 of: NIEVERGELT, J., CORAY, G., NICOUD, J.-D., & SHAW, A.C. (eds), Document Preparation Systems. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    GAREY, M. R., & JOHNSON, D. S. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    HANSEN, WILFRED J., & HAAS, CHRISTINA. 1988. Reading andWriting with Computers: A Framework for Explaining Differences in Performance. Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1080–1089.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    KANDERS, MICHAEL. 1996. Schule und Bildung in der öffentlichen Meinung. Beiträge zur Bildungsforschung und Schulentwicklung. Dortmund, Germany: IFS-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    KERNIGHAN, B. W., & WYK, CH. J. VAN. 1989. Page Makeup by Postprocessing Text Formatter Output. Computing Systems, 2(2), 103–132.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    KLEIN, R. 1997. Algorithmische Geometrie. Bonn: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    KNUTH, DONALD E. 1986. The TEXbook. Computer & Typesetting, vol. A. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    KNUTH, DONALD E., & PLASS, MICHAEL F. 1981. Breaking Paragraphs into Lines. Software-Practice and Experience, 11, 1119–1184.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    LAMPORT, L. 1986. LATEX: A Document Preparation System, User’s Guide & Reference Manual. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    PAGEL, BERND-UWE, & SIX, HANS-WERNER. 1994. Software Engineering; Band 1: Die Phasen der Softwareentwicklung. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    PIOLAT, ANNIE, ROUSSEY, JEAN-YVES, & THUNIN, OLIVIER. 1997. Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 47, 565–589.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    PLASS, M. F. 1981. Optimal Pagination Techniques for Automatic Typesetting Systems. Technical Report STAN-CS-81-870. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    PLASS, M. F., & KNUTH, D. E. 1982. Choosing Better Line Breaks. Pages 221–242 of: NIEVERGELT, J., CORAY, G., NICOUD, J.-D., & SHAW, A. C. (eds), Document Preparation Systems. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    RUBINSTEIN, R. 1988. Digital Typography: An Introduction to Type and Composition for Computer System Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    WILLIAMSON, H. 1983. Methods of Book Design. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    WOHLFEIL, STEFAN. 1997 (Dec). On the Pagination of Complex, Book-Like Documents. Ph.D. thesis, Fernuniversität Hagen, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Brüggemann-Klein
    • 1
  • Rolf Klein
    • 2
  • Stefan Wohlfeil
    • 3
  1. 1.Technische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Universität BonnBonnGermany
  3. 3.Fachhochschule HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations