[Closed] FrameMaker 7.x/8 Feature Requests

OK, message received; I'll shut up now. 8^)

I think some interplay about *why* we want (or *don't* want, in some cases) these features IS "focused on feature requests," and is essential to giving meaningful feedback to Adobe... but mine is only one voice, and it's had its say now anyway, so I'll go sit down.

-Bill

Please keep this thread focused on feature requests and move side conversations to a new thread.

Niels:<br /><br />>>There's no way my various managers are going to shell out for full Acrobat licences just so they can make my life easier every few months. <<<br /><br />Gotcha. But do they have FrameMaker? In my working scenario, nobody but the publications group (i.e., me and about 5 colleagues) has Frame, and it would be hard to make the case than anyone else needs it. Thus, redlining features in Frame would be pretty useless for us.<br /><br />Word is the corporate standard for general-purpose word processing, and it works well for that. OTOH, since routing documents (of all sorts, not just Frame publications) around for comment is a pretty widespread activity, in our case I think it *would* make sense to include Acrobat as part of the corporate-standard productivity toolset. Not that it's likely to happen, though. <g><br /><br />Which brings me around to a question: How many of you (or your organizations) are using Frame as a basic productivity tool, rather than as a specialized publishing tool? The answer might shed some light on some of the suggestions showing up here.<br /><br />-Bill

Dwight sez:

>>If the standard for accepting new features in Frame is that they don't break Word, we may as well just pack up and go home. <<

and Horace adds:

>>It's one thing to say do such-and-such like Word (I sure did). But, in so-saying, might we assume that FM would actually make that feature work before including it? <<

A couple points: I don't assume Word is the way it is because Microsoft hires a bunch of stoooopid programmers, nor do I assume Adobe's programmers will necessarily be significantly smarter. Rather (and full disclosure here: I'm not a programmer myself), I suspect that certain features that are memory intensive (e.g., multiple undo) or real-time processor intensive (e.g., on-the-fly spellchecking) *inherently* increase the risk of flakiness, regardless of how slickly they're programmed.

As for revision marking... well, the interface gives users lots of choices about *how* they make changes, and they use them all. Given the need to change one word within a sentence, one user will highlight and retype the entire sentence; another will highlight and retype the one word; another will backspace over the word and retype it; yet another will highlight, delete, and type.... While all these actions produce the same result, they all look like different actions to the machine... so it's not surprising they might get marked differently (and don't even get me started about change tracking in tables!). Programming in the smarts to recognize and reconcile these differences would use up a lot of the resources available to the application. So I think there's an *inherent* issue -- not just Microsoftian incompetence -- with that sort of revision tracking that makes it unsuitable as a replacement for redlining tools.

I've been a Word user since the very first (Mac) version was released, and I still use it as part of my current workflow. I think it's a FINE program... for what it does. It's just that FrameMaker does *different* things for me, and I'm reluctant to trade (or even risk trading) any of those things to get some of the niceties of Word.

Sorry if all this seems OT, but the on-topic point is this: All of *my* "wish-list" items are just that... wishes. FrameMaker works very well for me as-is, and I wouldn't willingly trade any of its current functionality and robustness for any of the things I've mentioned.

Of course, I recognize that others use the product differently, and YM most definitely MV! ;^)

-Bill

Bill Dauphin (posting n° 19) enquired
> JOOC, why don't you output to PDF and use its built-in redlining tools to collect comments?

Well, my very simple answer is, because Adobe junked the "Business Tools" package. There's no way my various managers are going to shell out for full Acrobat licences just so they can make my life easier every few months.

E-mails to Adobe Benelux go unanswered, and though I managed to corner a real live AdobePerson (TM) at an Acrobat seminar early in June he has yet to send me any more info on the "new product" he said would be coming out for testing in September.

I agree, though, that I wouldn't want FrameMaker to start handling comments and markup the way Word does. I find the Acrobat approach a lot cleaner and easier to work with.

JUST TO MAKE IT KNOWN, THE NEXT VERSION OF FRAMEMAKER WILL HAVE MULTIPLE UNDO!!!

I got an official reply from Adobe that they received lots of complaints about version 7 not having multiple undo, since it was rumored that the version after 6 would certainly have it.

It's likely that this feature will appear in a point release.

1. ability to generate a list of variables in files or book

2. a table sorting function that does not break cross-references (would be invaluable for translated glossaries!!)

3. a doc comparison utility that was actually fully functional (e.g. can recognize added/deleted table rows/columns.

But really, why are we bothering - Adobe could give a rat's ass about what their users want or don't want, far as I can tell (and here I submit to you exhibit A - FrameMaker v7).

Hello,

1.) Open Type Support
2.) Move most of the .ini stuff to an acceptable "Options" dialogue
3.) Upgrade the image import to read image information correctly (especially dpi x and y values) and stop FM from defaulting to 72dpi on a Windows machine
4.) Solve - or at least explain to an ignorant like me - the intriguing fact that I can create tagged PDF from unstructured, but not from structured FM files
5.) Please no features that impact performance
6.) - I know it has been discussed in depth before, but still - color separation under Windows
7.) A sidekick application to FM that only enables filling out templates and/or valid documents according to a given structured application and save them as PDF... no access to paragraph designer, etc. (to stop unmotivated creativity and get rid of Word!)
8.) No comment/track changes feature that allows clients to reveal (my!)stupid comments

Best Regards,
Uwe

"Quote me as saying I was misquoted."
Groucho Marx

So, *assuming Frame's stability is maintained*, I'm all for:

- multiple undo
- drag and drop editing
- spell as you go
- more elegant TOCs for truly standalone docs (as opposed to the current "standalone" documents)
- ability to anchor anchored frames above current line (not just below)
- fix that font not available business

I consider these to be pretty basic for a 21st century word processor.

And while I'm asking for the moon, howabout a lower price :)

Folks,

It's one thing to say do such-and-such like Word (I sure did). But, in so-saying, might we assume that FM would actually make that feature work before including it?