RE: comparing help authoring tools

Subject: RE: comparing help authoring tools
From: "Humbird, LenX" <lenx -dot- humbird -at- intel -dot- com>
To: "'TECHWR-L'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:54:51 -0800

FWIW, Here is a comparison between ForeHelp and RoboHelp, prepared by an
associate in my tech writing department who no longer works here.


ForeHelp:
+ easy to learn
authoring:
+ no need to compile as you go
+ multiple topic editing
+ tools to automatically create context-sensitive
help (e.g., prompts you to create topics for
DLLs and then automatically assigns IDs to
relate the DLL to the appropriate topic.)
- less specific Web support

project management:
- more manual file management (initially)
+ more flexibility in report info (topic properties,
template reports, lists of graphics (where used;
how many times), etc.)

Single sourcing:
~ generates .rtf (preserves headings, styles, popups
as footnotes or glossary items, topic odering
etc.)
- how easy to convert to FrameMaker??


RoboHelp
+ easy to learn
authoring:
- must compile to view contents
- must close/re-open to edit >1 topic
- must track context sensitive IDs (no way to
tell if a dialog is missing context-sensitive help)
+ offers access to a web community of users
(eHelp.com)
project management:
+ easy file management (automatic)
- less flexible reports
Single sourcing:
- Converts help files to chapters/books for use in
Word 95, 97, 2000 (no FrameMaker)






Previous by Author: Word coding question
Next by Author: RE: Contractors - Type Job Duties?
Previous by Thread: Re: comparing help authoring tools
Next by Thread: Dutch writers?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads