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.
I've recently finished using ForeHelp for a project (revising an existing
Help file produced by another, cruder tool), and I'm reasonably
impressed. Please note, however, that I've never used RobobHelp, and
can't compare the two.
ForeHelp's primary strong point is its wysiwyg-ness. You work in
something that closely resembles the Help environment. For example, you
can check a jump as soon as you create it by holding down Ctrl and
clicking; or you can press F10 and go immediately into full-blown test
mode, without having to compile. This feature alone is worth the
program's cost -- several times over -- because debugging is a snap. I
also like the ease with which you can deal with graphics and associated
hot spots. Their customer support hotline is fast and conscientious
(although the fact that I had to call them says something, too).
On the down side, the program isn't bug free: changing jump colors is an
adventure (be sure to view the results on _several_ machines); and I had
to edit the HPJ file a wee bit before compiling. And there are
omissions. There is, for example, no way to save your work on a project
other than closing and then reopening it!!! (This is supposed to be
remedied in release 2.0, which I've received but not yet loaded.) Also,
you create the jumps and browse sequences yourself, rather than having
them generated by the program from your text file. For the small project
I worked on that was fine, but it could get "interesting" on a huge
I'd give it a 7.5, maybe an 8.0.
Ed -dot- Hoornaert -at- Ventana -dot- com
Disclaimer: Ventana Corporation should not be held responsible for my big