Re: InDesign, anyone?

Subject: Re: InDesign, anyone?
From: Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 06:24:04 -0800

Scott Wilson <scottw -at- harlequin -dot- co -dot- uk> wrote:

>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?

InDesign is intended to compete with QuarkXpress. Unfortunately,
the present version is widely perceived as buggy, and many
graphic houses are reluctant to use it.

Like Quark, InDesign is best suited to documents that are: a.)
already in final form, and b.) not going to be heavily revised
during the time that you use them. While you could use InDesign
for documentation, doing so wouldn't be a very good use of your
time.

------
Bruce Byfield, Product Manager, Stormix Technologies
Vancouver, BC, Canada

"J'y suis, j'y reste" - Louis XIV of France






Previous by Author: Re: Summary of Responses: Whirlers and Environments (Long)
Next by Author: Re: benefits of a publications manager?
Previous by Thread: re: InDesign, anyone?
Next by Thread: Re. InDesign, anyone?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads