Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

In Design, PageMaker, FrameMaker or Quark?

200 views
Skip to first unread message

Catherine Hays

unread,
May 16, 2002, 12:01:31 PM5/16/02
to
Hi, I would like some serious advice on which way to go. I wear a number of hats, basically producing manuals, but hoping to move into more design and keep manuals too. I'm looking for a program that will maybe not hit everything 100%, but, be the best all round. I still need indexing. How's In Design for indexing? What about In Design and output to film? The printers I have been working with still sing the QXP praises… and calls PageMaker, RageMaker. They are not keen on its trapping capabilities. In Design exports HTML but not XML, right? I haven't been involved with output for the Web. Is HTML sufficient? Do I really need to export to XML? What if I looked at FrameMaker (which I know nothing about)? Your thoughts… Thanks,

Cathie

Malabika Guha Mustafi

unread,
May 16, 2002, 2:03:59 PM5/16/02
to
Cathie, Indesign 2.0 capable to export xml also.Featurewise Indesign 2.0 is rich enough compare to any other layout programme.

Michael Griswold

unread,
May 16, 2002, 2:03:59 PM5/16/02
to
Most of the people hanging here, including me, think a lot of ID. If you know AI or are familiar with the Adobe GUI that helps a lot. If you use other Adobe apps, the ability to use native files is a big plus. Built in PDF support, both importing and exporting is something that QXP doesn't do, at least without extensions.

I don't do indexes or TOC's but from what I've read here, support is solid for that in ID. How big are your manuals? ID has such superior type with the multiline composer that it pays to go with ID unless you are doing manuals over 100 or so pages, at which point FrameMaker is supposed to have advantages.

Hope this helps...

~m

Ian A. Wright

unread,
May 16, 2002, 4:32:08 PM5/16/02
to
Cathie:

PageMaker, InDesign and Framemaker have different target markets. PageMaker is now being aimed at the business market with lots of hand-holding for infrequent users creating many varieties of documents. PageMaker is more versatile with layout, has better colour features and is generally considered easier to use. InDesign is designed for electronic page layout of full colour, design-complex text and graphic documents. InDesign has much better typographic and graphic features and is best for colour of the three it also has a much stronger suite of Plug-ins better integrated into the core engine. IMHO it is also the best integrated of the three with other Adobe applications. Framemaker was designed for long, highly structured technical manuals. Frame has footnotes, varied auto-numbering and great stability for long documents. Their uses overlap but the three applications don't really compete with each other.

For a complete discussion of all three Adobe layout applications, go to: http://www.adobe.com/products/pagemaker/pdfs/pagelayoutds.pdf <http://www.adobe.com/products/pagemaker/pdfs/pagelayoutds.pdf> or http://www.adobe.com/support/salesdocs/e19a.htm <http://www.adobe.com/support/salesdocs/e19a.htm>

Here’s a comment from another User: Dave Saunders "PageMaker 7 or InDesign or Stay at 6.5" 2/27/02 2:38pm

IMHO PageMaker has the best indexing, but there is a Plug-in for InDesign that is a conversion of a QXP indexer that other Users have praised. From Virginia Systems (804) 739-3200 or http://www.virginiasystems.com <http://www.virginiasystems.com>

Catherine Hays

unread,
May 16, 2002, 6:40:23 PM5/16/02
to
Well, I have been doing manuals of over 100 pages, the latest being near 200 pages. The company that wants these manuals asked me to work in PageMaker (to date) which has been fine. I have had my share of corrupt files and have learnt to work in chapters and keep my template very clean. These manuals are beng revised once or twice a year. Print runs are short, so they use a digital copier and trapping and registration have been a non-issue. Lots of notes in these manuals - I usually set them off in a box of some sort so folks will notice them and will read them. I don't think footnotes would work with this crowd. The digital copy is a pdf. With this kind of work, would FrameMaker give me an advantage? Or just stay with PM? I am still serioulsy looking at In Design for more graphic capabilities. The fact that it will bring in native flies and is PPL3 is very interesting. Also, because it is so akin to other Adobe products, I feel like I am getting my arm twisted if I make the switch to QXP. Of course there are those who feel that if you are not working in QXP, then you are not serious. (I have AI 10. Great program.) I spoke with a new printer today and they have no negative issues with In Design. (At first, that I was all I heard.) Now I am thinking I will have two programs... Appreciate your comments. Cathie

pjredman

unread,
May 17, 2002, 9:00:08 AM5/17/02
to
Cathie,

If you're not going to offset press you might consider FrameMaker. It's somewhat of a bear to learn but it can do amazing things with automating long-document production. If your manuals are primarily design driven I'd avoid Frame. But if content drives the production Frame could be the way to go. The other big advantage of Frame is the XML capabilites of Frame 7, which are quite advanced compared to InDesign. I don't recommend Frame for offset printing; major problems with color there, even in a PDF workflow.

Phil Redman

Jennifer Rosenberg

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 3:24:18 PM6/7/02
to
The TOC feature is much, much easier to use than PageMaker's ever was. I
haven't indexed.
Jen


0 new messages