WP vs PageComp (was FM vs. Leaf)

Subject: WP vs PageComp (was FM vs. Leaf)
From: Katav <katav -at- YAHOO -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:34:12 -0800

//HISTORY: The original question originated in a shop where writers
use a word processor and compositors use a layout app (in this case,
Interleaf).//

Given page comp apps' CLAIMS to be all things to all people, this may
be heresy, but _I_ think a pubs group is better off letting writers
use a word processor (WP) with which they are familiar and hiring
compositors to compose with page composition (PC) apps.

Writers (to my mind) are paid to write. If the writer I hire wants to
use MNOWriter, can show me a license, and can prove the WP supports
'styles,' I gladly will let the writer use that app.

If I am setting up a pubs group, given budget constraints (I've never
been given a blank check), I will buy less expensive WPs for the
writers and fewer copies of the more expensive PCs. Likewise, I
purchase graphics apps for the artists, not PCs.

I EXPECT writers to apply WP styles that the PC can read. I EXPECT the
writers to run spell/grammar checks before the file goes to the PC. I
would LIKE to have the WP validated by the SMEs before the WP file
goes to the PC. Once passed to the PC, the writer is free of the file
(unless something untoward happens). If the writer is working with an
artist, I expect the WP file to contain specific instructions
regarding the graphic position vis-a-vis the related text and a figure
caption/title (albeit NOT a figure number).

IN TRUTH, when I was in a 2-person pubs operation, with this scrivener
as writer and the other person as artist/page compositor, to expedite
matters, I coded the word processor file (bound for then filter-less
Interleaf V3 and V5) and headed the file with an
!Include statement that called in an Interleaf template I created.
What remained for the artist was to place headers/footers and pix
(some of which I created).

I have FM5.5 and Ventura7 on a P133 w/80M of RAM and I will tell you
that -in my opinion - neither app's text creation abilities are as
good as MS Word (6/7 and 97/8), nor do their graphics capabilities
equal Corel Draw, Deneba Canvas, or Micrografx Designer. Yes, I HAVE
(reluctantly) used FM, 'Leaf, and Ventura to create text; I used
Mac/FM V4 to create pix (it was better than Freehand), but I normally
try to use what _I_ consider the best (read dedicated) tool for the job.

Because I am a 'control freak,' I like having the ability to 'do it
all,' but as a manager, I know others may prefer to 'specialize.' I
see no reason to (a) burden a writer (or artist) with page composition
duties and to (b) pay for a (more) expensive PC app unless (i) the
writer is a control freak or (ii) I need the person to do multiple
tasks. Even then, I will provide a WP for text creation, a graphics
editor for pix, and a PC for page composition.

(As to Interleaf vs. Frame ... I like them both - and Ventura, too -
but for different reasons. Heck, I even like Word -- as a word
processor.)

==
Katav ( katav -at- yahoo -dot- com )
Who is wise? He who learns from every person;
Who is honored? He who honors others.
(R. Ben Zoma [Avot 4:1])
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




Previous by Author: Where is Buck Buchanan?
Next by Author: Re: Framemaker vs. Interleaf
Previous by Thread: Academic vs. technical writing
Next by Thread: Re: Tests and Tire Kickers


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads