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:Framemaker vs. Interleaf From:Melonie Holliman <mrh -at- ABMDATA -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:26:32 -0600
Howdy, Chris and group:
I will start out this post saying I am biased AGAINST Ileaf.
Please take that into consideration when you note what I say.
5 years ago I worked for a company that had the same set up. This
setup is a hold-over from pre-DTP days when formatting was not easy.
The last year I was there we were migrating from Interleaf to Framemaker
and from a center doing the formatting to the writers handling the
manuals from start to finish. They decided to migrate from Interleaf
to Frame because Frame was 90% as good at 10% the price (I think the
prices are a bit more comprable now). They decided to give the
formatting to the writers because the old process added problems and
time to each project and the tech writers now had the know-how to
handle the formatting.
The migration was an absolute BEAR!! Ileaf had such weird way of
doing things that strange problems kept popping up. Of course, we
only migrated documents which were to be revised. And the graphics
drawn in Ileaf had to be ported one-by-one to eps then to Corel
then cleaned up (it might have been easier to redraw them). In the
end I think it was worth it, but it was a pain.
The Tech Writer
ABM Data Systems, Inc.
(mrh -at- abmdata -dot- com)
We are going to know a new freedom and a new happiness