[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[New search]
Subject: Whither FrameMaker? or, should they switch?
From: Deporodh <deporodh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Sender: owner-framers@xxxxxxxxx
Dear Framers, This is Deborah Snavely, posting from an alternate address. Please respond to this address on this question, directly since I'm getting only the digest here in an effort to manage the Yahoo mail account. A client asked me a multipart question about FrameMaker. I know some of the answer from the community's long and heated discussions about it: what is FrameMaker's future at Adobe's hands? Has Frame become a second-class citizen in their lineup? That's the first part. (I'm not bothering to subscribe to the other list for this effort but I know perfectly well that at least two Frame managers lurk there, which I consider a hopeful sign.) On the other hand, no one seems to have pounded the existence and market of Frame into their marketing-weenies' thick heads and rosy visions, so that's an iffy question. By way of hanging out a windsock, what's your current impressions on that front? Second part question is much simpler: if one were to migrate a training department's publications to another DTP product, what might be suitable? InDesign? QuarkXpress? Anything else? (Whatever it is should be available for the Macintosh platform and support it well.) My own first take on the question was that Adobe is still digesting its acquisition of Frame Technology -- look at how long it took them to change PageMaker's flavor from Aldus to Adobe. My second take was that, for complex training manuals of 500 pages and more with TOC and multiple indexes per book, nothing on the market except perhaps Ventura and Interleaf are anything like appropriate for the size and complexity involved. And their trainers already know how to use FrameMaker. And finally, my own question to you all: if you had FrameMaker files & books that had started life as Frame 3 files on the NeXT platform that used PostScript code for graphics (NeXT used Display PS onscreen), and had now been migrated to Frame 5.5 files on Windows NT 4.0 with OLE graphics, would you attribute such things as the regular and involuntary breaking of flows to the ghosts of the past buried in the files' code? Or is Adobe's stated non-support of OLE (per Frame/Windows tech support 1/14/2000) a more likely suspect for the fragility of these files, which incorporate an average of 20 half-page OLE graphics per file in the book? It's a weird kind of question, but then it's been a weird kind of contract! I know what my advice is and I've given it to them, but I said I'd ask the community about the comparative products question, and it's a question worth updating my knowledge for. Thanks in advance. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com ** ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body. **