Microsoft Word 2007 vs. Framemaker

OK, now that I'm thoroughly confused... Seriously, thanks for all the excellent comments. I've got a ways to go to match all your experience and talents.

There is one thing that I didn't mention earlier, not sure if it makes any difference. Although my user documentation hasn't gone past two hundred pages, I've had issues with images in Word. Specifically, I average about three images per page in my user documentation (my company is big on images). For production issues, I just copy and paste images in my documentation and return later to save as gifs and/or jpeg images. Along the way, I make sure the Office clipboard is clear (or the system crashes). Thus, I find Word crashes at times when the file gets very large. I stop around 20 or so pages to avoid this and convert the bitmaps to gif and/or jpeg. Not sure if FrameMaker handles this better.

Like Kenneth, I think many of the Word "features" Francis cites are mixed blessings, at best. In particular, this claim...

> Word can do search and replace for formatting, special characters and so on. Frame supports a lot of search options but can only replace with text, character format or "by pasting".

...misses the fact that Frame can copy a very useful batch of things, including not just text and tables and objects, but also paragraph or character formatting, table column widths (!), and (most powerfully) conditional text settings. Combine the vast array of things Frame can search for with this diversity of copiable items, and the ability to replace "by pasting" starts to look like an extraordinarily powerful tool. Yeah, it's easier to search for certain special characters in Word, but overall, Frame's Find/Change function gives me power Word can't match. Just try, for instance, using Word to maintain content-sensitive restrictive markings during development of a complex document. If every page that contains a reference to "lefthanded frammistat" needs to be marked "Competition Sensitive" AND every paragraph that contains a frammistat reference needs to be marked with a leading "(CS)" AND your legal department insists that every in-process review draft be correctly marked, how would you approach that using Word? With Frame's combination of conditional text, variables, and the ability to replace-by-pasting styles and conditions, it's easy (I just finished such a project).

I think Thomas' example points to the real difference: Word's interface and features (esp. ones like Autocorrect) make it easier for relatively untrained people to do relatively simple tasks... which makes it a great tool for everyday productivity tasks. For highly trained professionals doing more complex tasks, these productivity features can become more of a hindrance than a help, and the greater power and control afforded by Frame becomes dispositive.

Which may be why even Microsoft doesn't use Word for jobs better suited to Frame.

(PS: Lest you think I'm just a hater, I'll mention that I've been using -- and loving -- Word ever since its initial version... for the Mac... years before Windows even existed.)

One more argument:

Microsoft use FrameMaker for long/large/heavy documents (i.e. Microsoft Press, Microsoft Dynamics).

Just thought you should know :-)

keep smiling
thomas

Gloria wrote "Frame is a great tool, but it isn't perfect". I would go farther than that, and say that Frame is in many respects a lousy tool in comparison with Word.

OK, Frame does many things better than Word in terms of handling long multi-chapter documents. But Word can be tamed in that respect too: I have written manuals for many years in Word before recently being pushed by corporate policy into Frame. And what I miss most is the efficiency of the authoring environment in Word. Just some examples:

- Mistype a word: 7 times out of 10 Word will correct it automatically. Frame does not have that funtion at all.
- Accidentally press Caps Lock so that a sentence starts like tHIS. Word will correct it, Frame does not.
- Misspell a word: Word reacts with red underlining immediately. With Frame you have to do a tedious spell check (which goes through every document twice if you make any changes...).
- Move or copy a phrase: Word supports drag and drop, Frame forces cut and paste. And Word fixes spaces at the beginning and end of the moved phrase intelligently, with Frame you have to use your intelligence.
- Macros and keyboard shortcuts: set up your own in Word, learn highly non-standard escape sequences in Frame.
- Templates are real templates in Word that can automatically ensure consistent formatting. With Frame you have to import formats from another document.
- Word does not often crash and has a fairly decent crash recovery function. Frame crashes relatively often and recovery is a joke.
- Word gives you full and intuitive control over tables. Frame might give you full control but it is not easy to find...
- Word can do search and replace for formatting, special characters and so on. Frame supports a lot of search options but can only replace with text, character format or "by pasting".

I could go on and on, but the sum of my experience is that Word can be made to work with a little effort, while Frame is clumsy, bug-ridden and has a badly designed interface. Add to that your requirement to save files as Word documents and I would back Word any day, even with the new 2007 interface.

Paul,
Frame is a great tool, but it isn't perfect (just read the contents of this forum). The fact that you don't like the Word 2007 interface is really not a sufficient reason to make a change.

You should evaluate your documents to determine how you can benefit from a move to Frame in terms of productivity. If you do not need the features that make Frame great, then how can you make a business case for the change?

In considering how Frame might increase your productivity, two great features that Frame has (and Word doesn't) include conditional text and variables. If you can improve your productivity by using these two features, then that would be a business case for moving to Frame. Conditional text and variables are useful when you have a document that can serve as a basis for several documents that are similar, such as documents for different models of the same product. You use variables for the product name, model no., and other product-specific info, then change the variable definitions for each version of the document. You include conditional text to cover features unique to each product. Having a single source for all information that is common between documents equals greater productivity.

Also, the fact that documents are comprised of individual files is wonderful if you can use chapters in more than one document, thus maintaining a single master for particular content.

Of course, working with chapter files is also great if you have really large documents, but you already mentioned that your documents are not very big. What about distributed authoring? Do you have multiple people working on the same document? That is another situation in which Frame shines, because of the separate chapter files.

Note that the fact that you can use a variable for a product name, and you can use separate chapter files for your document, is not enough. You need to determine that doing so will bring about a productivity improvement in your situation.

Another solid benefit of Frame is cross referencing between different documents. Frame handles this much better than Word. Do you or could you make significant use of this capability?

These are the kinds of things you should consider before pursuing Frame. You also have to factor in the extra work that will be needed to convert the files to Word as required by your company. Even with the best tool, that conversion will take time. If your reviewers are making changes in the Word file using Track Changes, then extra work is required to incorporate the changes into the Frame files, as well.

I hope this helps. I like Frame, but considering the business situation you have described, I'm not sure it is the best solution for you.

--GMc

Hi Arnis,

An earlier message from Art mentioned Omni Systems mif2go too. Looks like something I definitely need to check out. Receiving all great responses, I appreciate it.

Paul

Sheila and Gay,

Thank you for your thoughts and tool idea - Solid Converter PDF sounds great.

Again, many thanks,

Paul

I was very thankful when we finally switched from Word to FM as our authoring tool, but ran into a small snag when some clients, both internal and external, needed various docs in Word format. After some research, I found the perfect solution (for my needs, at any rate) in a third-party conversion tool called "Solid Converter PDF" (www.soliddocuments.com). For me, the standard version (around $50) is all that's required to keep everybody happy.

I create PDFs from my FM docs and then with a single click Solid Converter PDF converts the PDFs into Word documents.

It does a relatively seamless conversion and handles tables superbly (graphics, too). I've noticed the occasional bullet or numbering issue (however, we are talking Word here, remember) and you should be aware that everything ends up in "Normal" style. That's not a problem for me, because my users don't care, they just want a Word doc they can open and possibly edit. Of course, if your docs require styles, there would be additional time to apply them throughout.

BTW, I am in NO way associated with Solid Documents! I'm just a fan, as I am of FM. ;~)

HTH,
Gay

If your documents are table-heavy, you might find the conversion difficult to maintain and eventually annoying for the Word users, because there are significant differences in formatting capability between the two apps and the transition between the two apps can often result an uneasy pas de deux of approximations.

For example, while Word has some additional "design" capabilities that lends itself to easier achievement of design elements such as cells split vertically, while FM has big advantages in other respects such as in being able to handle enormously long tables without any problem.

Ken, Art, and Martin,

Thank you for your time and response.

Paul