Re: Frame versus Word

[Hedley Finger <hfinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sheila:

>
>I know this has been covered before.
>I must prove why we should continue to use Frame not Word.
>We produce large study books for students. We use all the advanced features
>such as conditional text, hypertext linking, cross referencing, indexing and
>TOC, and compare documents. All of these features are very user friendly.
>Our study books are now being sent to an outside entity for conversion to
>html for online delivery.
>

I think I saw a page of hyperlinks to Web pages and PDF documents comparing
Word and FrameMaker at <http://www.frameusers.com>.  If it isn't there you
may be able to find it with a search engine: include 'alex ~ ragen' in the
keywords submitted to an Alta Vista search.

There is also a white paper on how the University of Melbourne uses a
database, FrameMaker+SGML, and Acrobat to publish the undergraduate course
handbooks in print, on CD-ROM, and on the Web at
<http://www.its.unimelb.edu.au/papers/cause97/DMcause97.html>.  I'm sure
the author would be happy to help you.

With respect to your working methods:

Conditional text
----------------

Word doesn't have it, full stop.

Hyperlinking
------------

Word has it but it is inferior to FrameMaker.  Also, Word always uses the
absolute filepath to other files, not the relative path as FrameMaker does.
So if you move the fileset to another directory all the links break.
FrameMaker lets you use the message marker to open files in other programs.

FrameMaker hyperlinks are preserved in PDF and HTML; don't know about Word's.

Cross-referencing
-----------------

The common cross-reference format

	[see] "This Is the Topic Heading" on page 18-21

takes one step in FrameMaker but three in Word unless you set up a macro.

In the above example, the entire cross-reference is a hyperlink in
FrameMaker, PDF, and HTML, but in Word only 'This Is the Topic Heading' and
'21' are links in Word itself and WordViewer (the fool's Acrobat Reader),
but not in PDF and not in HTML.

Word does not have cross-reference formats, so you have to either create
macros or construct them manually each time.  Also, when you add a
cross-reference to a heading, Word displays all the headings at all levels
in the pick list.  If your document is at all lengthy and has many
headings, it becomes very difficult to find the correct target.  Word only
let's you easily create cross-reference to heading paragraphs, whereas
Frame let's you choose any para tag as a target.

If a cross-reference breaks, FrameMaker at least preserves the wording of
the original reference as a clue to help you restore it.  Word's 'Error!
Bookmark not found' (or somesuch) is no help at all.  FrameMaker can also
generate a list of broken links in a fileset making up a book from which
you can hyperjump to the offending reference.

Indexing
--------

Word's indexing has improved to the extent that character styles (tags) are
preserved from compilation to compilation.  But you have no control over
sorting order and only limited control over the typography and layout.
But, most damning, Word's generated index entries are not hyperlinks
anywhere, unlike FrameMaker, where they are hyperlinks within FrameMaker
and generated PDF (don't know about HTML as I have not had to convert and
indexed book to HTML yet).

ToC
---

Word can compile ToC's across multiple files but you have to set up a
separate TOC field for each member file.  So if you change the chapter
order, add a file, delete a file, or whatever, you have to go back and fix
the TOC fields accordingly.  You have almost no control over the typography
of the ToC.  Word applies a paragraph style to the entire ToC entry (hope
you like 18 pt bold leader dots), whereas the builder template in your ToC
file let's you control the complete appearance of each component of an
entry in FrameMaker:  chapter number, heading text, leaders or lack
thereof, and folios.

This is a convenient point to mention FrameMaker's philosophy of many small
files making up a book v. Word's of having to put the entire document into
a single file or face lots of manual maintenance ensuring chapters,
figures, tables, etc. number correctly across multiple files.  (Everybody
gave up on the notorioous master document in Word years ago and Microsoft
still haven't fixed it in the latest release.)

I have a 300-page document in Word mainly for ease of cross-referencing and
compiling the ToC and Index, and, boy, is it scary.  I could break it up
into smaller files at the cost of increased maintenance of the ToC and
Index.  Also, while I have the file open, no-one else can work on it.  With
Frame files, one person can be writing a file, another indexing a different
file, and a third incorporating reviewer feedback.

Document comparison
-------------------

About the same.  Word's revision tracking beats FrameMaker hollow by
highlighting reviwer's online changes and deletions, and allowing the
editor to quickly accept or reject changes.  Adobe could easily add this to
FrameMaker to take advantage of conditional text and moreover allow each
reviwer to have a different colour, unlike Word.

Reliability
-----------

Word crashes more often than FrameMaker.  I have used FrameMaker and
FrameMaker+SGML (formerly FrameBuilder) on Macintosh, HP-UX, SunOS,
Solaris, Windows, and Windows NT, from version 3.0 to 5.5.6, and have NEVER
lost a single character of text because of a crash.  (I've lost plenty
owing to my own stupidity though!)   As far as I can tell, a separate
daemon constantly 'watches' FrameMaker and, as soon as FM crashes, saves a
file dump of the document's memory structure on disk.

If I could have a dollar for every character lost by Word, I wouldn't be
sitting here contributing to a Framers forum.  And the so-called recovery
file that Word displays after a crash is NOT NECESSARILY THE MOST RECENT
VERSION OF YOUR FILE.

Alternative rabbit-skinning methods
===================================

@	Publish in PDF, not HTML.

	We all know that FrameMaker works brillianty with Acrobat
	to produce PDF files, with full hyperlinking from the ToC, LoF,
	LoT, Index, and cross-references (none of these survive PDF
	conversion from Word).  You could publish these both on the
	Web and on CD-ROM.

@	Find another conversion service.

	Sounds like your conversion service imagines it is the master,
	not the servant, in wanting you to work more inefficiently and
	at greater expense throughout the content-development cycle
	just so that it can save a few dollars at the final step.

	Why not try Allette Systems -- Marcus Carr <mailto:mrc@allette.com.au>,
	at Allette Systems (Australia) <http://www.allette.com.au>, frequently
	contributes to these forums.  Allette also have a Queensland
	representative: Grant Nobes, <mailto:gnobes@allette.com.au>,
	telephone 07 3260 2895.

	Can other Australian Framers suggest alternative conversion services
	to Sheila.

Regards,
Hedley




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

Monica Couttie

E-mail: <mcouttie@handholding.com.au>
Tel +61 3 9809 1229   Fax +61 3 9809 1326 (07:30--21:00 hours AEST)
Mobile +61 412 461 558 (after hours only as it is my husband's)




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