Re: FM's place at Adobe

[Tim Cole <tcole@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lindsey, thanks for copying me on this.

I'd encourage you not to read more than I intended into these posts.

My comments referred to the under-the-hood way pages and documents are
described at a code level.

This is not meant as a way to describe the feature set, per se, or the
target market, or the long-term direction of the product.

All publishing products have core architectures that determine what types of
features are easy to add, and what features are more difficult. Document
processors were originally architected to do some types things better than
more free-form layout products--and the free-form products do some things
better than those apps originally architected for longer docs.

It is the case that Frame is positioned via its features for longer,
technical documents--unlike InDesign. Exactly what features will be added to
Frame over time in the areas of typography or anything else is not something
I'm privy to, nor could I discuss them if I were.

I think it's likely that Frame will continue to be aimed at the longer,
technical document market, and InDesign aimed at shorter, more design
intensive documents like magazines, brochures, ad layouts, etc.

I would also expect that both products, over time, will add features that
will appeal to users outside of the respective product's core market. The
features that are added are largely determined by user feedback and other
market research done by Adobe.

I don't know if this additional information is helpful to you or not. If the
latter, please feel free to contact me again.

Regards,

TC

Lindsey Thomas Martin wrote on 3/20/00 12:58 PM:

> Here are some extracts from a thread (If Word can do it ...) from
> Blueworld's Indesign list that shows how one person, at least, at Adobe
> views FrameMaker. If such a perception is wide-spread at Adobe, one does
> not have to look much further to see why the re-packaging called FrameMaker
> 6.0 has not addressed any of the long-standing typesetting deficiencies and
> malfunctions in FM.
> 
> Lindsey Martin 
> 
>> PCJ wrote on 3/18/00 4:21 AM:
>> 
>>> Even MSWord can make a table. I guess that about says it all.
>> 
>> Unfortunately it doesn't. It's comparing apples and oranges (or apples and
>> rubber bands). I've explained this before on this list, but I'll do it one
>> more time.
>> 
>> Put in simple terms, the way that word or document processors like Word and
>> FrameMaker approach document structure is very, very different from that of
>> a more free-form layout tool like InDesign, XPress, Illustrator, FreeHand,
>> PageMaker, etc.
>> 
>> Tim Cole
>> tcole@adobe.com
> 
>> Craig Faichney wrote on 3/18/00 12:33 PM:
>> 
>>> It's curious that FM is lumped in with Word. Is it structurally more akin
>>> to Word than as a "free form" layout app?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, you got it...and so is Ventura...
>> 
>> 
>> Tim Cole
>> tcole@adobe.com

===================================

Tim Cole
Mindshare Engineer, Ltd.
Adobe Systems, Inc.
206.675.7955 
tcole@adobe.com

===================================


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **