Should we add a "Phototypesetting" credit role?

General
1

We currently have a Typesetting credit role, which I am using in the majority of cases where verbatim text says “Phototypeset by”.

Seems reasonable as the role is still typesetting, even though the two processes are distinctly different.

So this question is basically around ease of use and fidelity to what’s actually printed in the book. My thoughts:

  • Having roles that closely match what’s printed in the book makes data entry easy for users (without having to have additional technical knowledge).
  • It’s theoretically possible that the distinction between two editions could have been the move from one process to the other.
2

There are cases where typesetting is just described as “set”. There may be a clue in the name of the company (“Rowland Phototypesetting”) but that isn’t an indication of the process for sure. I used to go to a school named a “Grammar School”, but it wasn’t one. Just the name remained.

I don’t know much about typesetting, it has to be said.

Perhaps another case for having a description field against a Credit attribution?

3

I like it either as simple as possible or as complicated as we can get. In this case, I’d prefer the simple way with just typesetting, as I assume there are not diffenrent ways of typeset used on one item. It also makes it easier when translating from other languages. Just recently I found a credit for “Belichtung” in a book, did some research and found out: it’s translation varies, depending on the method used. On older books, it would refer to photoset/ phototypeset (literally Fotosatz, which is also a commonly used credit), on newer items it would more likely be “Prepress” (we do have “Scanning/Prepress” as an option on credits).
So I’m perfectly fine with using “Typeset by” for any kind of typeset.