What Should You Automate First in Multilingual DTP?

 

Introduction

Automation is everywhere.

You can automate layout adjustments, file packaging, PDF export, translation import, style cleanup—the list is long.

But if you automate the wrong thing first, your workflow doesn’t scale.
It just becomes more complicated.

So here’s the real question:

If you could automate only one thing in multilingual DTP this year, what would it be?

This is not a technical question.
It’s a prioritization problem.

Common Mistakes When Choosing What to Automate

Before defining criteria, it helps to look at what not to do.

1) Starting with something impressive

I once tried to automate text importing across documents.

The idea was clean: writers prepare text files, and a script finds placeholders in InDesign and replaces them automatically.

Technically, it worked.

Practically, it didn’t move the needle.

Copy-paste was often faster. And the real friction didn’t come from importing text—it came afterwards: overset text, layout breaks, exceptions in tables, grouped objects, and all the messy edge cases.

It was a wide-scope automation, but not a high-leverage one.

2) Automating a one-time emergency

At one point, I wrote a script that reduced every paragraph style’s point size by 1pt to solve a layout issue.

It saved the day.

Once.

But that wasn’t a scalable improvement. It was a workaround.

One-off automation often optimizes a single fire—not the system.

3) Prioritizing what is “possible”

I also built a date-change script with a UI that let users choose multiple update modes.

It looked flexible.

Later, I removed the UI.

Why?

Because in actual usage, the requirement was almost always fixed:

  • If the date contains “xx”, update to today’s date.

  • Otherwise, set the day to “xx” while updating month/year.

The extra flexibility added friction. I built it because I could—not because it improved the workflow.

“Can be done” is not the same as “worth doing.”

Three Criteria for Your First Automation

If you want automation that actually scales multilingual DTP, use these three filters:

1) High Frequency

It must happen often.

If you only encounter the task twice a year, it’s rarely your first candidate.

2) High Instability

The task behaves differently each time.

In multilingual production, instability is common:

  • text expansion after translation

  • language-specific line breaks

  • tables breaking differently per language

  • layout shifts across versions

Instability does not mean the rule is complex.
It means the condition changes.

The condition may be unpredictable—but the rule to fix it should be simple.

3) Low Judgment

The task does not require complex human interpretation.

If the decision can be expressed as rules, conditions, or predictable logic, it’s a strong automation candidate.

If it requires contextual understanding, regulatory interpretation, or content nuance, it’s not your first target.

Look for tasks where at least two of these forces strongly overlap.
The strongest candidates usually satisfy all three.

Applying the Criteria in Practice

Case 1: Minimal Date Update

(Frequency × Low Judgment)

Date updates happen repeatedly, and the correct behavior is often rule-based.

In my case, most updates followed predictable logic:

  • If the date contains “xx”, update to today’s date.

  • Otherwise, set the day to “xx” while updating month/year.

Instead of adding options, I removed them.
I embedded the decision logic directly into the script.

The result:

  • fewer clicks

  • fewer decisions

  • less room for error

This example uses a simple English date format for clarity.
In multilingual environments, it is often better to create separate minimal scripts per language rather than adding complex UI branching logic.

Here’s a minimal example (no UI, no options—just rule-based behavior):

Want the ready-to-use version?
Skip the copy-paste and download the script directly from Gumroad.
Download on Gumroad (Free) → 
#target indesign

if (app.selection.length === 0) {
    alert("Please select text containing a date.");
    exit();
}

var sel = app.selection[0];
if (!sel.hasOwnProperty("contents")) {
    alert("Selected object does not contain editable text.");
    exit();
}

var text = sel.contents;

// Match: "xx Xxx 20xx" or "12 Jan 2025" etc.
var regex = /([0-9xX]{2})\s+([A-Za-z]{3})\s+([0-9xX]{4})/;
var match = text.match(regex);

if (!match) {
    alert("No date pattern found (expected: dd MMM yyyy).");
    exit();
}

var oldDay = match[1];
var oldMonth = match[2];
var oldYear = match[3];

var hasX = /x/i.test(oldDay + oldMonth + oldYear);

var now = new Date();
var dayNum = now.getDate();
var day2 = (dayNum < 10) ? ("0" + dayNum) : String(dayNum);

var months = ["Jan","Feb","Mar","Apr","May","Jun","Jul","Aug","Sep","Oct","Nov","Dec"];
var curMonth = months[now.getMonth()];
var curYear = String(now.getFullYear());

var newDate;

if (hasX) {
    // If the date contains "xx" (or any x), update to today's full date.
    newDate = day2 + " " + curMonth + " " + curYear;
} else {
    // Otherwise, set the day to "xx" while updating month/year.
    newDate = "xx " + curMonth + " " + curYear;
}

sel.contents = text.replace(regex, newDate);

alert("Date updated to: " + newDate);

This is not sophisticated automation.
It is targeted friction removal.

This shows the script in action:



Case 2: From a Font-Shrinking Hack to Overset Fixer

(Frequency × Instability × Low Judgment)

Shrinking all paragraph styles was a reaction.

Overset text after translation is a pattern.

The real issue wasn’t “make text smaller.”
It was that translated layouts become unstable.

Different languages expand differently.
Tables overflow unpredictably.
Anchored objects behave inconsistently.
Even small upstream changes can shift pagination.

Overset is both frequent and unstable—making it a strong automation candidate.

Although overset behaves differently each time, the handling logic can still be rule-based:

  • detect overset

  • apply controlled adjustments

  • re-check

The judgment required is procedural, not interpretive.

Instead of a destructive global font reduction, the solution evolved toward a more controlled approach:

  • detect overset reliably

  • adjust strategically

  • preserve design intent where possible

The difference is not technical complexity.

It is alignment with frequency, instability, and low-judgment handling.

I’ve written separately about how this thinking evolved into a more structured overset-handling approach.

Where the Bottleneck Eventually Moves

Once repetitive friction is reduced, the constraint shifts.

Not to file handling.
Not to formatting.

But to judgment.

What should change—and what should not?

Automation can remove mechanical repetition.
It cannot replace structured decision design.

And that is where scaling truly begins.

If you had to choose just one thing to automate this year, choose the one that happens often, behaves unpredictably in input, but can be handled with simple rules.

Start there.

Popular Posts