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 original post didn't ask for samples of manuals that could readily
be identified as Frame samples, but just some Frame-produced samples the
requester could use as models for experimenting with Frame to try to
come up with similar results.
How did that turn into an argument about whether you can tell, by
looking at a document, what tools were used to create it?
Digital Sound Corporation
Opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of Digital
>On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Jeff Hooker wrote:
>> > [Jeff Hooker] In George's defense,
>> > It is a least as silly to suggest that the tool used to create a
>> > document has no influence on the final form of the document itself.
>> > Certain tools have certain strengths that make certain layouts make
>> > more sense from a creation/upkeep point of view.
>> > I would also assert that the platform is a lot less relevant than the
>> > tool itself.
>> > This is not a flame, but rather a light noogie.
>> > Just my opinion,
>> > Jeff Hooker
>Now your cooking with gas Jeff!
>That was my point. The platform (Mac, UNIX, Windows, AS400, et el.) has no
>affect on the outcome of the look of the document.
>I further assert, that *anything* you can create in Framemaker, I can
>create an *exact* undistinguishible copy of in Interleaf.
>Let the battle of the DTP begin!
>This is not a flame, but rather a touche'
>(somewhat defensive today) ;-)