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.
The learning curve for Framemaker is quite steep (and I've sometimes
fallen off of it!). But (and I *HATE* to say this) Framemaker is so
powerful that I couldn't go back to Word for "longish" documents.
steve, who was one of the folks who wrote the manuals for the first two
releases of W4W...
>From: Bruce Foster[SMTP:bruce_foster -at- MENTORG -dot- COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 1996 9:46 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Re: Software
>I second Mitch's recommendation for FrameMaker. I've spent many hours trying
>to get Word to do page layout that would take seconds in FM. I've also used
>PageMaker, but it has no integrated tables or equations, and it's not much
>for maintaining paragraph numbering, among other things.
>- Bruce Foster
>On Dec 24, 11:30am, Mitch Berg wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Software
>> Didn't we just finish the DTP war two weeks ago?
>> Jay Dougherty wrote:
>> > I'd appreciate any opinions. What's the best Windows (95) software for
>> > producing long technical documents with lots of footnotes, equations, and
>> > tables?
>> In my humble but considered opinion, there are three options:
>> 1. FrameMaker
>> 2. FrameMaker
>> 3. FrameMaker
>> (Don't flame me, Interleaf zealots - since he's on W95, he probably
>> can't run ILeaf anyway)
>> You can produce the dox you want in many other platforms, but...
>> * in Word, you have to do so many clunky workarounds that maintenance is
>> a nightmare. If you want to have running headings that change with
>> chapter, for example, getting the "Section Breaks" to behave is enough
>> drive you to drink, esp. if multiple writers are involved.
>> Don't make me laugh.
>> * PageMaker and Quark are designed for shorter, graphically-flashy
>> I had a manager who swore by PageMaker for long dox - even after I
>> laid out a
>> 150-page manual in Frame in two hours, which took her two days in
>> And again, if Equations are a showstopper, Frame does it, PM (AFAIK)
>> * WordPerfect? I'm told it's better than Word. I'm also told it gives
>> a fatal disease. Why bother - Frame works better.
>> * WordPro is a neat WP for short dox. You'll die a horrible, screaming
>> death if you
>> have to go over fifty pages or so. Don't go there.
>> * MS Publisher? Stop it, you're killing me...
>> Frame has a learning curve, and you have to DESIGN your templates,
>> especially with an eye toward reusability - cranking out templates on
>> the fly will not do. But it pays major dividends in the long run,
>> especially if you adopt it with an aim toward standardizing your entire
>> doc set. It takes a little time and money up front, which you'll more
>> than recoup later.
>> Email me if you have questions. (BTW, I'm not a paid spokesman for
>> Mitch Berg
>>-- End of excerpt from Mitch Berg