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: Word instead of FrameMaker From:Tan Joo Khim <jktan -at- CTHOST -dot- CT -dot- CREAF -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:31:15 +0800
Thanks, Melanie and several other tech writers, for your helpful answers.
However, I would like to rephrase my earlier question slightly: Pls advise
on the pros and cons of using Word 97 instead of FrameMaker 5.0 for printed
Microsoft's new Word97 apparently has a lot of improved features in the
areas of cross-referencing, master documents, etc. But I've yet to see the
- jookhim +
> From: Flanders, Melanie <mflanders -at- DYNASTY -dot- COM>
> Subject: Re: Word instead of FrameMaker
> Date: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 11:20 AM
> And now for the cons...
> 1. If you need TOC and indexing capabilities for your document, Word
> to handle the task. FrameMaker allows you a lot of flexibility in
> formats and generates them with little manual intervention. The cross
> are accurate. With Word, it's a crapshoot, and you can spend HOURS
> correcting incorrectly generated page numbers. Word does not allow much
> flexibility in creating TOCs. We have had several users have squirrelly
> occur when they were trying to create a TOC and we couldn't find a way to
> troubleshoot the problem.
> 2. If you have large documents, Word has difficulty handling the size.
> FrameMaker's book file capability allows you to generate large documents
> and quickly. Other timing and space issues can also depend on the
> 3. If you use a lot of tables in your doc, Frame allows you to define
> table formats. Editing and manipulating tables in FM is a breeze; in
> are a nightmare.
> 4. If you use structured writing methodologies (such as Information
> is much easier and faster to create the templates for your documents in
> FrameMaker. You can also create tags that automatically produce lines or
> such as "continued on next page."
> 5. You can use FrameMaker source files to create HTML and Acrobat files
> need multiple delivery mechanisms. We convert files to .rtf for our Word
> You often lose the graphics, but the rest of the format, including
> intact. Word users can modify the .rtf file. (We send .rtfs to our
> Europe. They also have the issue of the page size being different.)
> Quite frankly, I can't imagine any "pros" for using Word to create
> documentation. The only thing that I've found Word can do that FM doesn't
> mail merge. I use Word on those occasions when I am sending out form
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> Subject: Word instead of FrameMaker
> Author: Tan Joo Khim <jktan -at- CTHOST -dot- CT -dot- CREAF -dot- COM>
> Sender: "Technical Writers
> List; for al at ~INTERNET
> Date: 1/14/97 8:23 PM
> Pls advise on the pros and cons of using Word instead of FrameMaker for
> printed documentation.
> >From our point of view, the immediate benefit of using Word instead of
> FrameMaker are:
> 1. Currently, there are no Asian versions of FM. Standardizing on Word
> would mean that worldwide loc offices can all work on the original
> documents that HQ
> has created.
> 2. Word is also a good platform for generating WinHelp and HTML.
> Eventually, we
> probably should standardize on HTML as this will mean one consistent
> interface for
> the user instead of three different online solutions: WinHelp,
> and HTML.
> tks... merci... gracias...
> - jookhim +