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: Framemaker From:"Alexandria G. Khalil" <akhalil -at- SUNGARD -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 24 Jan 1996 09:22:33 EST
Kent and A Plato,
When I first began using FrameMaker I also hated it and found it
difficult. It wouldn't do things the way I was used to doing them in
other packages. However, when I began using it and learning Frame's
language and technique I found it quite easy to use. My suggestion is
that when you are learning to use Frame forget how things are done in
other packages. Learn FrameMaker as if it were the first time you were
using a dtp package for the first time. Follow Frame's manual to the
letter and you will soon find that it is not difficult and nor
SunGard Capital Markets
akhalil -at- sungard -dot- com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Framemaker
Author: Kent Newton <KentN -at- metrix-inc -dot- com> at Internet
Date: 1/23/96 8:28 PM
aplato -at- aol -dot- com (A Plato) wrote:
>I don't get it. Hundreds of companies use Framemaker to develop all
>documentation -- and Framemaker SUCKS. I used it for a few months and
>found it one of the most non-intuitive, backwards applications in the
>Please, some of you Framemaker lovers tell me why the technical writer
>world loves this tool. I do most of my work in Word or Pagemaker which
>are both much more intuitive tools. Word usually covers anything simple
>and straightfoward I need to do.
>I have wanted to apply for jobs, yet they always seem to want someone
>Frame experience. It pisses me off because Frame is such a worthless
>-- and I feel locked out of some of these jobs.
I don't care for Framemaker much, either, but our company switched from
Word 6.0 to Framemaker 5.0. I agree that Framemaker is not intuitive.
I much prefer Word: it is easier to use, and it can easily be configured
to meet your needs. It's more forgiving than Frame, too.
However, having said that, I must add that Frame has many features that
Word (or Pagemaker) cannot match. Specifically, Framemaker seems ideal
for long documents. If I have a simple document of no longer than 40 or
50 pages, I would probably still use Word. But I maintain a 1,000+ page
manual, and Frame does work better for me. True, the features are not as
intuitive or simple as those in Word, but they are more powerful.
We did have another incentive for moving to Frame, though: our printshop
requested that we move to Framemaker or Pagemaker so we could supply them
with electronic files instead of hardcopies. After trying both, we opted
for Framemaker for our technical documentation (although our marketing
department with with Pagemaker for their output).
Senior Technical Writer
kentn -at- metrix-inc -dot- com