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:Popularity of Framemaker From:Stuart Burnfield <slb -at- FS -dot- COM -dot- AU> Date:Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:13:36 +0800
Kathy Fisher <kdfisher -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> wrote:
> I've been hearing so much about how Framemaker is so widely used in the
> tech pubs community. . . why is it the big ticket in other parts of the
techwr regulars may already know that I am long-sloppy-kiss in love with
Frame, after an abusive two-year relationship with a painted doxy from
Seattle, who. . . well let's not go into that.
Frame has some zits, but it is very well suited to what I do: longish
(100 - 200 page) multi-chapter software manuals, with screen dumps,
diagrams, generated TOC and index, and numerous cross-references. Word
can handle all these requirements to some extent, but has problems in
all these areas. Word is a very good word-processor but poor at DTP.
Frame is an adequate WP and very good at long-book DTP.
My impression of Pagemaker (based on my extensive ignorance) is that it
is very good at short, design-heavy work, where you want fine control
over layout. You can tweak anything, anywhere. Frame is better at longer
structured documents, where you explicitly don't *want* to be tweaking
individual elements on the page -- you'd like to set up all the form-
atting styles and page layouts in advance, and just pour in the content.
Interleaf is aimed at high-end document preparation -- many writers, many
documents, many versions, many pages (up into the millions). It has
its fans for smaller jobs, too.
Frame is owned by Adobe, which may be a very good or a very bad thing.
The bad thing is that Adobe also owns Pagemaker, and many of us were
concerned that Adobe would quietly cripple Frame or merge it with
Ragemaker. I haven't seen any evidence of this so far. The good thing
is that Adobe is aiming to be the heavyweight standard-setter in all
aspects of document preparation and publishing, and if Frame is a part
of that then we're unlikely to be locked out of any promising technology