Adobe InCopy CS is Adobe’s editorial solution. It is designed to work together with InDesign CS, but can be used as word processor by itself as well. However, InCopy CS is aimed primarily at the user in the editorial workflow. InCopy CS produces pure XML files. The product is delivered by Adobe as well as Value Added Resellers these days, whereas previous versions could only be purchased from VARs.

Using InCopy CS as a Microsoft Word replacement can be done, but the resulting document is not compatible with anything, except with applications that read and parse XML files. It isn’t a good idea to buy the product just for that purpose. But when you want to interact with Indesign CS, InCopy CS is just the program you need. Although InDesign CS comes with its own built-in editor, there’s nothing like the power of InCopy when it comes to writing.

The real value of InCopy CS lies in its ability to have editors write to fit (copyfit), especially when a layout must be ‘filled up’ like in newspaper or magazine publishing. This works as follows: a designer sets up a layout and checks in the text frames that will hold the articles. The editor opens these articles in InCopy CS and writes until he sees a status bar turn green and display the words ‘Copy Fit’. That’s when he knows the frame is exactly filled up.

Of course, the integration with InDesign doesn’t happen on its own. In the past, VARs were usually also system integrators developing their own plug-in for the InCopy/InDesign tandem. These plug-ins created a bridge between InCopy and InDesign and allowed for the functionality needed to write to fit. With InCopy CS, Adobe has developed its own plug-in system that comes standard with InCopy: the Adobe Bridge. The Bridge is a plug-in that uses the Links palette as its control centre and which offers basic functionality to make the editorial workflow that you can get with the program tandem happen.

However, the Bridge is far from ideal. It doesn’t offer much in terms of overwriting protection, for example, meaning that simultaneous editing of open articles is possible. Furthermore, the Bridge regularly got confused when I tested its abilities to ‘find’ the right InDesign document to put its articles in. If you consider me testing the system by myself, all alone, you can imagine what it means for a workgroup. The Bridge is therefore limited in its capabilities---it supports very small workgroups of no more than about 5 people in my experience. Such small workgroups can still solve problems if they are in the same geographical location. For people working in different locations, I would be very careful implementing the Bridge.

You can find a 200K image of InCopy’s interface with a few callouts in this separate window.

For those people plug-in systems like Smart Connection or SoftCare’s K4 seem like a lot more trustworthy. These plug-ins also liberate the true power of InCopy CS in tandem with InDesign CS: simultaneous editing/designing. The Bridge allows this as well, but as I said it cannot be trusted, and simultaneous editing remains somewhat theoretical. With K4, Smart Connection, or some of the other solutions, the power of simultaneous editing and designing becomes fully possible. This really makes the editorial workflow more efficient, as designers can keep fine-tuning and adding design elements to pages while editors can simultaneously write articles.

For editors, InCopy CS delivers the best of the old and the new. An editor migrating from an old-style editorial system can easily set up his copy of InCopy (no pun intended) so that his screen resembles the old system as closely as possible. This mimicking goes as far as the text cursor or i-beam’s form and colour. To editors just starting to work with an editorial system, InCopy offers all of the interface power of Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator.

Is InCopy CS better than for example the Quark Publishing System and its editorial front-end? From a technical perspective, I would be inclined to say it isn’t. Quark uses a proprietary system, which traps an IT-manager into buying Quark’s system for the rest of his professional life. If he wants more power or a different working method, he will have to re-invest in a completely new and incompatible system like InCopy/InDesign---although instruments for the latter exist that make migrating less daunting. On the other hand, from a user’s perspective, I really can’t tell. Although I have asked a test version on several occasions, Quark has always declined, sending me marketing material instead.