Re: Framemaker vs. Interleaf

Subject: Re: Framemaker vs. Interleaf
From: Max Wyss <prodok -at- PRODOK -dot- CH>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:01:25 +0200

Melonie,

your message shows very well that it is always a big pain to switch to
another tool. It does not matter whether it is from Interleaf to
Framemaker, or from Framemaker to Word, or from Wordstar to AmiPro ... or
whatever.

It can even be a problem with upgrades within the same software. Quark
Xpress has a reputation that it refuses to open anything not created with
its exact version number.

So, it is always very important to compare the advantages and disadvantages
of switching systems. Of course, one day, it might be necessary. But then,
the appropriate tools and resources for switching must be made available.

This is especially a word in the ears of some clowns in management who have
their idee fixe about tools, and want to impose it on anyone in the company
(mainly because their favourite tool comes bundled with new computers). So,
they save $100 for the expense of magnitudes more...


Max Wyss
PRODOK Engineering AG
Technical documentation and translations, Electronic Publishing
CH-8906 Bonstetten, Switzerland

Fax: +41 1 700 20 37
e-mail: mailto:prodok -at- prodok -dot- ch or 100012 -dot- 44 -at- compuserve -dot- com



Bridging the Knowledge Gap



______________


>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.
>
>
>Melonie Holliman
>The Tech Writer
>ABM Data Systems, Inc.
>Austin, TX
>(mrh -at- abmdata -dot- com)
>




Previous by Author: Re: Int'l book sizes
Next by Author: FW: Courses in writing basics for "non-writing" professionals???
Previous by Thread: Framemaker vs. Interleaf
Next by Thread: Re: Framemaker vs. Interleaf


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads