Re. InDesign, anyone?

Subject: Re. InDesign, anyone?
From: "Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
To: "Techwr-L (E-mail)" <TECHWR-L -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:38:14 -0500

Scott Wilson wondered: <<Is InDesign an acceptable "halfway house" between
Framemaker and QuarkXpress for producing *both* user manuals and more
graphically-intensive marketing materials? Or does it fail to make the grade
for documentation usage?>>

It fails to make the grade. InDesign suffers badly from the "version 1"
blues, and right now is notable more for what it _will_ become than what it
can actually do right now. There's no question it's got the best typographic
engine on the market (for desktop systems, leastwise), and is competitive
with Quark in "design" tools, but it lacks certain crucial tools for
technical documentation, such as a built-in text editor. Moreover, it lacks
a track record with service bureaus, and that means you're going to be one
of the many who are beta-testing its film-output capabilities. There's a new
add-on that Adobe is in the process of releasing (InEdit? InAne?
InFuriating?) that will remedy the editing lacunae, but I haven't heard
anything about it yet other than that it shows promise. Publish and MacWorld
have both been regularly reviewing the software over the past (6?) months,
so hit their web sites or the library to see what they had to say (on which
I based my own opinions).

--Geoff Hart, Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
"The paperless office will arrive when the paperless toilet
arrives."--Matthew Stevens

Previous by Author: Updating copyright information?
Next by Author: Re. A good name for the manual?
Previous by Thread: Re: InDesign, anyone?
Next by Thread: RoboHelp Tutorial

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads