[Closed] FrameMaker 7.x/8 Feature Requests

Bug fixes...how about getting a version that runs on an operating system that has been out for more than two years? If LongHorn ever gets released will it take five years to get a new version of FrameMaker that will run on it?

Sad. I don't think Adobe will get a visit from Santa this year.

The only thing that wets my whistle is the "real" support for SVG, and I don't need that right now. I am very, extremely interested to learn what bug fixes made it in ... runaround bug, crashes while searching, crashes while spell checking, etc. I could use some of the bug fixes <g>.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Sean

FM 7.1 upgrade announced: <<a href="/cgi-bin/webx?50@@.2cceac03">Dov Isaacs "FrameMaker 7.1 Announced -- ( BW)(CA-ADOBE-SYSTEMS)(ADBE) New Version of Adobe FrameMaker Extends Powerful XML Capabilities" 12/1/03 8:19am>

Cheers,

Sean

Precisely. It's not a matter of caring or not caring about the Mac, I think Adobe is sticking by their excuse that Frame's code is too old to do any major rework, like trying to port to the Aqua interface of OS X. Well, what are their plans for Longhorn? Now that's gonna be one hell of a graphic-rich behemoth. Is Frame's old code up to that challenge?

I work on a Mac in OS-X. I am proficient in Word, pretty good at InDesign, and a beginner with FM, which I need for a large book (28-30 chapters, 600-800 pages).

The FM layout process sure is clunky in comparison to working with InDesign -- everything feels more rigid and it takes lots more clicks and keystrokes to accomplish anything. The FM text editor is great, and far more stable than Word, but it sure feels and looks dated. I'm trying not to let that stop me because I'd really like it if I never had to open Word again.

So, things I wish an FM upgrade would have:

Easier text flow and frame connection -- more like InDesign, which is very fluid. Viewable text threads so you can see the flow when you need to.

Contrast color grid lines; more options for grid spacing. Option to view baselines.
Movable guide lines.

More ability to customize toolbars and keystrokes.

More freedom to place anchored frames without so many work-arounds needed -- maybe I'm not familiar enough with the program, but it sure isn't intuitive how to get them in the right place, at the right size, and have them stay put. Arranging graphics in relation to text on a page might take me a minute in InDesign, and ten times as long in FM. I often feel like the program is fighting me because the rules are too rigid. Too often I find myself trying to trick it into letting me do something that ought to be simple, like having a graphic straddle a side head and a text frame without knocking out the text or slipping off the page entirely. Grrrrr.

A couple of ideas that FM could borrow from Word -- I really like the "Document Map" in Word for Mac. This is a panel that slides out to the side of the text window that lets you see the outline or hierarchy of the document. It is a great navigation tool -- clicking on a heading in the document map takes you to the text. Also "Outline" view in Word is generated automatically and lets you move blocks of text. I think it is similar to the Elements View in Structured FM (which I'm not familiar with), Anyhow, Document Map or Outline View, or even better, a combination of the two would be really good to have in FM.

FM allows you to build a dictionary of abbreviations for commonly used words and then use Find and Replace to expand them. It's very helpful, but isn't as good as the AutoCorrect in Word that completes the abbreviations as you type. Major time saver.

And of course, OS-X please, please, please!! FM is the only legacy program I still use and the UI is really dated.

Of course, I suppose one could speculate about InDesign evolving into the OS-X version of FM...Just like SGML used to be an add-on to FM, maybe the more robust FM features could be written as add-ons to ID? One "module" could be a serious text editor, (and no, Story Editor doesn't do it, but is that where this is going?). Another chunk could be the "Book" for chapters with footnotes, cross-references, indexes, etc. If they ported over the pieces of FM that are missing in ID, they wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel, and perhaps we'd get a modernized version of FM more quickly.

Hell, I'll bring fuel and lighters at this point! I'd get several copies of FrameMaker for OS X myself/for my clients right away if they'd get it to OS X!!!!!

I really like the program a lot, and there's nothing else like it, but if they don't get to an OS X version soon I'm going to have to abandon it, because it's gotten very problematic in the classic system for us to create PDFs from it. I'm NOT going back to using windows.

I'd actually advocate its use in place of Word in many cases, because it's so superior.

Please don't abandon us Mac users, and don't forget that in many cases, it's us that gets our Windows-using clients/partners, etc., to use FrameMaker. I know we've been responsible for MANY windows copies being sold (as well as other Adobe software, like Illustrator), even though we're a Mac shop. If we drop it, though, future clients will not be getting it either, and Adobe loses along with us.

Do I ever want to drop classic on my machine, FrameMaker is the only reason I still have it.

>The font issues alone would be a nightmare when dealing with publishers.

Use OpenType fonts. Problem solved.

Besides, TTFs present no problems with press; it's the naming conventions across platforms that sometimes need working out.

>I reiterate my one (and only) feature request: FrameMaker 8 on OSX. I'll take five copies right now.

I second it. I'm a Windows user and it benefits me for that to happen. Make noise, start a petition, show Adobe the business case ....

Cheers,

Sean

That would be one grand I don't feel like spending. The font issues alone would be a nightmare when dealing with publishers.

When a company decides to ditch a platform it has supported for many years I do consider that being abandoned. Adobe no longer seems to care about consumers, just the fact that there stock price continues to go up. I own some, but not enough to ever get them to listen to me ;)

I'm still boggled why they can't port the *nix version to run under X11 which is now built in with OSX 10.3. Last I heard is that there are so many low level system hacks in FM that it just isn't possible and would cost too much.

Macromedia did an amazing job porting Director MX over to the OSX world by having much of the programming done in India. FM also moved most of its development to India. Maybe Adobe could hire a few of Macromedia's programmers.

I reiterate my one (and only) feature request: FrameMaker 8 on OSX. I'll take five copies right now.

Well, Mac users could switch to Solaris or Windows XP. The trouble I see for Mac users *if* FrameMaker remains unsupported on OS X is quite simply that there is no other tool to replace FrameMaker. A Windows PC that supports FrameMaker would cost less than a grand.

Cheers,

Sean

Raman,

Without "putting down" Mac users in any way, please don't even think about Adobe abandoning FM just because they won't support a certain platform.