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.
Yes, in the graphics industry they usually want QuarkXPress, Photoshop and
Illustrator. I LOVE QuarkXPress, and Bill is absolutely right about the
print process and Mac shops.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Smith [SMTP:cybersmith -at- ZIANET -dot- COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 10:01 AM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: PageMaker vs. FrameMaker
This is in response to Ginny's question about PageMaker. FrameMaker and
PageMaker are both very good products. Whether you bought the right one
depends on how you plan to use it. PageMaker is better for newsletters,
brochures, and graphics-intensive applications where there are a lot of
changes in format from one page to the next. FrameMaker is the industry
standard for long manuals. FrameMaker is much better for automatically
generating a table of contents and index. I also prefer the FrameMaker GUI
for setting up style sheets.
PageMaker is probably more flexible. If you're using it for a lot of
different applications, it's probably the best choice. An even more
advanced
desktop publishing tool is Quark Express. Its big advantage is that more
print shops support it (especially if you have a Mac).
