Re: ANNOUNCE: WebWorks Publisher training

[jeremy@xxxxxxxxx (Jeremy H. Griffith)]

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:36:28 -0500, "Sarah O'Keefe" <okeefe@scriptorium.com>
wrote:

>However, I phrased that statement very carefully. If you need to export to
>**LOTS** of different formats, including HTML, WinHelp, etc., then mif2rtf
>isn't going to do all of that, and WWP is the (only) answer. If you need
>WinHelp conversion only, then mif2rtf is certainly an option. Your other
>alternative would be to build a patchwork of different conversions; one for
>each export path. I feel that is a poor choice, because you would have to
>learn several different tools. (By Jeremy's analysis, I guess I should
>support this alternative and just provide training for all of them. <sickly
>grin>)

Sometimes there's just no getting around it, you need different tools
for different purposes.  You don't drive screws with a hammer.  For
WinHelp, which was the format I was talking about, mif2rtf has done
an exceptional job for far longer than WWP, which only added the format
last year.  And we are currently sending a beta of our new HTML output
filter, which is just as fast and powerful, to all new mif2rtf customers;
it will be part of our next upgrade, in fact, at *no* increase in price.
I didn't even mention that if you include a year of upgrades, which
mif2rtf does, you pay well under *half* as much for mif2rtf as for WWP,
even before the (significant) cost of training for WWP...

>>Many framers who have tried both tell
>>us they prefer it, in no uncertain terms.  OTOH, the only people who
>>have tried both and tell us they prefer WWP are Quadralay trainers.
>
>So basically, I'm lying because I have a financial interest in Quadralay's
>product? Hmmmmm. Not very funny to me.

No, Sarah, I didn't say you were lying, and I resent your putting those
ugly words in my mouth.  What I implied was that you are biased, which 
is perfectly reasonable.  So am I.  We each know a lot about one of the
two products, and less about the other.  Of course the familiar product
is easier for each of us.  And my statement is the exact, literal, truth;
you and Craig Sanders are the *only* people who had access to both mif2rtf
and WWP, and preferred WWP; and you are both Quadralay trainers.

>We do not resell WebWorks Publisher (or any other software). We feel that
>this makes it easier to stay objective when we recommend software to our
>clients. We do offer training and consulting for FrameMaker and WebWorks
>Publisher and obviously have a vested interest in new users who need
>training in those packages. Why did we choose those two packages? Because
>we feel that they are the best choices out there for our clients' typical
>requirements. They have steep learning curves, but a lot of power and
>customizability once you get past the learning phase.

Craig made the same point; he didn't sell WWP either.  But if fewer
people bought WWP, fewer would come to your training... so there is
an obvious financial interest as well as experiential bias.  Same as
we have.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just that we need to be up
front about it, and not make claims that imply impartiality.

>BTW, we did not pay Quadralay for promotion on their web site or for
>certification as WWP trainers. (More than I can say for Adobe's
>certification program.)

And how about Microsoft's?  Heh, heh.  Certification is another cash
cow for way too many companies.  If Quadralay doesn't do that, good
for them!  We wouldn't either, if we needed trainers...

>We often recommend software for which we do not provide training or
>consulting, including MIF2RTF.

And I've recommended Quadralay more than once; in fact, I did so
in the very email you're answering, for CJK and MS HTML Help use!

>Take a look at this URL:
>
>http://www.scriptorium.com/olhconv.html
>
>for an analysis of which one to choose. I think you'll agree that our
>assessment is fair.

I just took a quick look, and I have several problems with that analysis.
I don't want to quote it all here <g>, but the main points are that
since last November mif2rtf has also had an FDK GUI, like WWP (we sent
you that version), and that you can use mif2rtf *with* RoboHelp to
preserve all FrameMaker links and other features on the way to many
other Help formats than WinHelp.  (We and Blue Sky test this regularly;
we've each furnished the other our products for this purpose.)

>I prefer WWP's interface (which isn't wonderful) to MIF2RTF's .ini file
>modification process. But that's a personal preference.

Our next upgrade includes a Conversion Designer that automates every
bit of the .ini file, from within FM.  You won't need to look at the
.ini any more, though you still can if you want.  And you can still
run batches from the command line, for full automation.

>Finally, I'd like to throw this back out to the list, if anyone's still
>reading at this point. If you have looked at both MIF2RTF and at WebWorks
>Publisher, please tell the world (or respond to me privately if you prefer)
>which one you chose and why you prefer it. I'd like to see whether Jeremy's
>assessment that only Quadralay trainers prefer WWP is accurate. If there's
>a reasonable amount of response from the three lists, I'll compile the info
>and put it on our web site to help the next person trying to make this
>decision.

I second that request!  Actually, it's been made before on framers, a few
times, and also on WinHlp-L.  The trouble is, hardly anyone has both...
the feedback we've gotten directly was from people who tried the WWP demo,
then decided to buy mif2rtf.  We can repeat their comments privately to
anyone who asks directly, but it would be inappropriate to post them.

BTW, we're not on the third list (techwr-l), so if Sarah wants to post
our side of the discussion there for us, we'd be grateful.  Thanks!

-- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
  (jeremy@omsys.com)  http://www.omsys.com/

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