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:Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:28:55 EST
I know I am going to get alot of heat for this comment, but here it
goes. I don't think it is necessary to convert to a new software
package every time someone has a problem with their current software.
Speaking as a manager, I find that practice totally wasteful. What are
the inadequacies of Frame's import and export that your colleague is
encountering? Perhaps they need to speak to Frame support to help with
I am not saying that FrameMaker is the dtp for all companies. Like any
other decision, you have to take a step back and look at the overall
picture. Will your colleague need to transfer files across platforms?
What will be the cost in terms of training time and converting
documents? There are numerous questions that need to be asked.
PageMaker is a great tool, in fact I like it better than FrameMaker
and Word, but it my situation it does not satisfy my most pressing
need, cross-platform compatibility.
SunGard Capital Markets
akhalil -at- sungard -dot- com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Author: Michael Andrew Uhl <uhl -at- vislab -dot- epa -dot- gov> at Internet
Date: 1/25/96 7:40 AM
Kent Newton has it right: FrameMaker is less intuitive than
Word or PageMaker, but it's better at handling large documents.
On the other hand, too many people ignorantly argue the
superiority of Framemaker without an adequate awareness of
the other products out there.
Yesterday, a colleague bought me lunch with the intent of
asking for software advice. His group produces case report
forms (CRF) fr clinical trials. They currently use FrameMaker but
find it cumbersome and inadequate in its import and export
capabilities. I recommended PageMaker for their work. CRFs
are typically medium-length documents (20-120 pages) and vary
greatly from page to page.
Michael Andrew Uhl, Lead Technical Writer (uhl -at- vislab -dot- epa -dot- gov)
Lockheed Martin, Primary Support Contractor to US EPA
National Environmental Supercomputing Center (NESC)