Re: Comparison of WebWorks and MIF2GO (long)

[Russ Urquhart <russurquhart1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I've been lurking here for a while, but here is something that i 
thought i could contribute to. I've rambled on down below, so if you 
want the short version, we use miff2go, after having used WWP. We've 
saved a lot of money, have gotten better support than we ever had, and 
have been more productive, and have never looked back.

If you want the long version, here it is.

About 2 and a half years ago, i started learning how to use WWP for my 
job here that i had just started about 6 months prior. We were using 
wwp to document an API set that we developed. Much of the initial work 
had been setup for the previous version of the API, but i was tasked 
with learning and using WWP for the new version of the API coming out 
shortly.
Prior to this job, I had used HTML transit to generate HTML documents 
from both Framemaker and Interleaf, so I had some knowledge of these 
utilities prior to learning and using WWP.
As i got into WWP, it was amazing to me how much the user had to setup 
first before he could generate any html. (Also, I had to learn a lot 
about html and what i wanted generated, just to get a simple html 
version of my framemaker document.  After purchasing the Scriptorium 
book to learn how to use WWP (as no printed documentation is available 
for the version of the product we were using at that time), it soon 
became obvious that, while there may be a lot of functionality 
available via WWP, it was MUCH harder that it had to be, IMO.
At that point, i started looking at other products that would do the 
same sort of thing. The products i looked at were, WWP, HTML Transit, 
and MIff2go.
As i started the evaluation I had several ideas about what a product 
like this should do, and what our tech pubs group was looking for. For 
me, a product like this should at least let me easily generate a simple 
html version of my document with not a lot work. (Customization above 
and beyond this I would expect would take some effort on my part.)  
Most of the HTML generation tools require a separate environment and 
work area where the MIF files are handled and converted into HTML. 
(Similar to Robohelp.)  My only requirement in this area would be that, 
whatever this application is, it not make the manipulation of multi 
chapter books overly cumbersome.) Finally, the cost of upgrades and 
support for WWP, for our then five person group, was very expensive, 
for us. We were looking at purchasing additional copies of WWP for 
approximately $900 and upgrades for about $700 - $800, plus having a 
fixed number of times we could ask for help from the WWP support. Any 
new tool we looked at, would have to cost at least as much, but it 
would be nice if it cost less, as the whole team needed a copy of the 
software.
I started looking first at HTML Transit. Having used it previously, i 
was pretty familiar with what it could and couldn't do. It made it 
pretty easy to create an HTML version of your document right off the 
bat. If you needed to get more complex, there were mechanisms for doing 
that as well.  The deal breaker for html transit, for us, was the 
price. Having a previous version of the software, i could upgrade to to 
the latest for $3000.  Regular retail for this was about $5000.  There 
was no way this was going to work.
I then looked at the latest version of WWP. They had just added the 
WYSIWYG features to the GUI.  While this was a nice feature, it still 
had the same problem, imo, the user still had to know a LOT about HTML, 
just to generate a simple html version of his document.  Also the price 
of this new version was goiing to be more than the cost of the previous 
version and to upgrade, the cost was what we had originally spent to 
buy the previous version. If I couldn't find anything better, then we 
would have to stick with WWP and only upgrade a few of us.
Then I started looking at Miff2go. I had heard the product referred to 
on one of the Frame User's forum. I downloaded the trial version and 
began trying to see how it worked. The first thing that struck me was 
how this program worked, versus the other two. Miff2go, after 
installation, simply adds a couple of menu items to your file menu: 
'Set Up Miff2go' and 'Save using miff2go'.  You use miff2go like it was 
an export-type command within Framemaker. What ever directory you 
designated for output, that was were it went, period.  When i did a 
simple save as html, it processed my document and gave me a simple html 
version of my doc. I didn't have to tell it anything about my document. 
(To customize it, I would have to tell it more, but that was what i 
expected.) The configuration file was all in a simple.ini file. (Kind 
of like the old win.ini file, back when configuring windows was 
simple.) Anything i changed in there was used to control the output it 
generated. I didn't have to go to a lot of different places to find 
what i needed. It also came with a huge PDF version of the User's guide 
that had everything i would ever want to know about mif2go. (I still 
haven't gotten thru it all, but most of it.) The one last thing was the 
price. Miff2go was $300 dollars. If we bought five copies, the 
individual cost went down to something around $250. So, for us, for the 
cost of one upgrade to WWP, we could buy four copies of miff2go. As i 
started trying out miff2go, i had some questions so i emailed their 
tech support. (I hadn't purchased anything at this time.) I was amazed 
to get an email reponse within a couple of hours.
For us, we selected Miff2go and we have never been happier. We have had 
some problems and issues, in a deadline situation, and Jeremy Griffth, 
on EVERY occasion, has been there with an answer for us, most times 
within a span of a couple of hours. (Some of those times, we have found 
bugs and he was able to respond back with a patch for us to try.)  I 
have NEVER received the quality of support for any other product that i 
have received for Miff2go. It is one of those rare products that is 
well designed and well supported, and provides  you the power you need, 
when you need it, but doesn't get in your way when doing simple things.
I've been using miff2go now for over two years and am still finding 
things that it can do. The extensive macro facility within miff2go has 
allowed me to, easily, set up a dialog box that prompts our writers to 
enter the version number of the current help build, and keep track of 
that. I was also able to use the programming language to hand code some 
of the html being generated to get around an anemic browser being used 
for viewing html. All without changing my existing Framemaker docs and 
books. (The makers of miff2go also offer a free copy of the software to 
those of us currently inbetween jobs.)
I'm sorry that I've rambled on so long here. I will gladly respond to 
any questions anyone has about this product.

If i had a complaint to make, it would be that miff2go is not available 
for the Mac. WWP is not either, but as the then Product mgr (who was a 
mac user) told me, "...mac people wouldn't be happy with WWP as it is."

If i can be of help to anyone, please feel free to let me know!


Thanks


Russ

On Aug 10, 2004, at 10:11 AM, Thomas Michanek wrote:

> [ The original message appeared on the FrameUsers mailing list.
>   This reply is sent only to the "Free Framers" mailing list. ]
>
> From: "Paul Turner" <paulturner1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Many of us across the planet are looking for a comparison and 
> > critiques of
> > WebWorks and MIF2GO, now that Macromedia has decided not to continue
> > development on RoboHelp for FrameMaker.
>
> I made a similar request a couple of years ago. I could probably
> look up all the messages and forward them to you, but essentially
> I learned the following:
>
> * Very few people have tried both products in real projects.
>   Playing with a demo or similar a short time won't give you
>   a real feel for the product's strengths and weaknesses.
>
> * Simple feature-by-feature comparisons won't say much.
>   It's more a matter of *how* things are accomplished.
>   Is there a GUI, do you need to learn a "language", etc.
>
> * Most people were very satisfied with the product they chose
>   to use, and didn't find a reason to try the other product.
>
> * The people using MIF2GO were generally more enthustiastic
>   about the product than the people using WWP, especially
>   considering the cost.
>
> Just have this in mind as the replies keep coming.
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> Thomas Michanek, FrameMaker/UNIX/MIF expert
> Technical Communicator, Uppsala, Sweden
> mailto:Thomas.Michanek@xxxxxxxxx
> http://go.to/framers/
> _____________________________________________
>
> Join the "Free Framers" mailing list: send an email to
> majordomo@xxxxxxxxx with "subscribe framers" in the body
>
>
>
> ** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx **
> ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **


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