TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Translating Ventura From:Faith Weber <weber -at- EASI -dot- ENET -dot- DEC -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 27 Oct 1993 19:37:24 PDT
While it may be that graphics don't translate well from
Ventura to Frame, a friend who's been doing similar conversions
told me he was surprised how much of the formatting, etc.
*was* successfully converted with Frame's Ventura filter.
He found it to be pretty easy and thought the conversion was
probably about 95% accurate.
I wouldn't dream of converting from Ventura to Word. You could
do it, but as far as I know there's no way to preserve the
formatting, and you would have to write a macro to delete all
of Ventura's weird codes (formatting, indexing, markers,
cross-references, etc.). Even if the graphics don't go through
from Ventura to Frame, I think a conversion to Frame would still
require a *lot* less work.
Also, I know I wouldn't be happy going from a DTP product to Word.
I like Word as a word processor for letters, schedules, etc., but
it just can't do some of the heavy-duty/complex stuff that a DTP
product can do. I've gotten accustomed to using those features for
the manuals I write, and I'd hate to give them up. (I use Ventura
myself, and anticipate an eventual switch to Frame. I briefly
considered Word but decided against it for the above reasons.)
weber -at- easi -dot- enet -dot- dec -dot- com