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: Which do I use? PageMaker? FrameMaker? Quark? From:Earline Gilley <earline_g -at- HOTMAIL -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:14:41 PST
On March 11, I wrote:
<I am an application developer recently given the role of technical
<writer, that is I am now responsible for creating manuals for the
<software I develop. As if I don't have enough to do around here!
<Anyway, I am terribly confused by all of the desktop publishing
<software on the market. I have taken Adobe PageMaker 6.5 and
<QuarkXPress for test drives. At the moment I am using Word 97 to
<create my documents,but it is painful. My biggest concern is this: <my
boss could want paper manuals one day, and the next day he will <ask me
where the online version is. It's not as easy as just saving <a file in
a different format and then pushing it to the web!I am <going to have to
invest in a product where I can create manuals for <print and, with a
little alteration, publish to the web. Would I be <safe in purchasing
just Adobe Acrobat, or should I consider <FrameMaker or PageMaker? Any
opinions would be appreciated.
The verdict is in:
FrameMaker is the best tool for lengthy technical manuals.
PageMaker and Quark are suited for shorter, less graphic-intensive
documents like brochures and flyers.
I would like to thank everyone who took the time to respond to my