Benefits of Switching to FrameMaker?

[S_Reynolds]

Good Morning,

  I am looking for some guidance regarding the benefits of switching to FrameMaker as my company's documentation authoring tool.  Some brief background information: I work for a software company, and one of my roles is authoring and maintaining our product documentation.  Currently our documents (probably between 15 and 20 in all) are authored using Word.  There isn't anything too fancy or exotic about the documentation: a half dozen different styles are used, graphics are present (embedded as links), and occasionally a table is included.  I haven't had any major problems with Word, but it's always nice to see if there are better ways of doing things.  Since FrameMaker appears to be touted as the de facto standard for technical writing, I decided to check it out.  I've spent a week working with it and going through a number of online tutorials.

  After spending some time with FrameMaker, I can see some definite advantages.  If I was starting from scratch and could choose between Word and FrameMaker, I would probably go with FrameMaker.  However, the issue at hand is that I am not starting from scratch, and what I have been unable to gauge is whether the superior features in FrameMaker are enough to warrant the effort that it will take to convert the existing documentation.  I have looked over a couple of different online resources (including some discussions in this forum) to get a feel for the conversion process, and it looks to be extensive.  In taking one of my existing documents and running it through the process of cleaning it up in Word, importing it into FrameMaker, and then formatting it in FrameMaker, there has been some significant effort involved.  Granted, some of this is due to learning curve issues on my part.  But I don't have a good sense of how efficient the conversion process will become as I become better acquainted with the product.

  I would love to hear from people who have gone through the same process I have described.  Was it worth it in the end?  Have the benefits of FrameMaker been significant enough to justify the time and effort that goes into converting legacy documents?  Or was it honestly not worth it?  Like I said, from what I've seen so far, I can definitely see some value in using FrameMaker over Word - if I could snap my fingers and magically convert all my documents, I think I probably would.  But at the same time, I'm not unhappy with Word.  Based on my admittedly limited exposure to FrameMaker, I'm not sure I can justify making the switch.

  Thanks in advance.

[Jeff_Coatsworth]

Really depends on the length of your documents & what you want your help output to appear as. Word is fine for short documents, but really falls apart when dealing with long book length docs with lots of cross-referencing. If your help is going to appear only as short PDF docs, then Word & Acrobat Pro would be fine. If your help output is going to end up as some sort of compiled web accessible help, then using the Tech Comm Suite is the way to go (or doing all your authoring in RoboHelp).

My two cents worth anyway.

[peter minneapolis]

S_Reynolds wrote:

Good Morning,

  I am looking for some guidance regarding the benefits of switching to FrameMaker as my company's documentation authoring tool.  Some brief background information: I work for a software company, and one of my roles is authoring and maintaining our product documentation.  Currently our documents (probably between 15 and 20 in all) are authored using Word.  There isn't anything too fancy or exotic about the documentation: a half dozen different styles are used, graphics are present (embedded as links), and occasionally a table is included.  I haven't had any major problems with Word, but it's always nice to see if there are better ways of doing things.  Since FrameMaker appears to be touted as the de facto standard for technical writing, I decided to check it out.  I've spent a week working with it and going through a number of online tutorials.

  After spending some time with FrameMaker, I can see some definite advantages.  If I was starting from scratch and could choose between Word and FrameMaker, I would probably go with FrameMaker.  However, the issue at hand is that I am not starting from scratch, and what I have been unable to gauge is whether the superior features in FrameMaker are enough to warrant the effort that it will take to convert the existing documentation.  I have looked over a couple of different online resources (including some discussions in this forum) to get a feel for the conversion process, and it looks to be extensive.  In taking one of my existing documents and running it through the process of cleaning it up in Word, importing it into FrameMaker, and then formatting it in FrameMaker, there has been some significant effort involved.  Granted, some of this is due to learning curve issues on my part.  But I don't have a good sense of how efficient the conversion process will become as I become better acquainted with the product.

  I would love to hear from people who have gone through the same process I have described.  Was it worth it in the end?  Have the benefits of FrameMaker been significant enough to justify the time and effort that goes into converting legacy documents?  Or was it honestly not worth it?  Like I said, from what I've seen so far, I can definitely see some value in using FrameMaker over Word - if I could snap my fingers and magically convert all my documents, I think I probably would.  But at the same time, I'm not unhappy with Word.  Based on my admittedly limited exposure to FrameMaker, I'm not sure I can justify making the switch.

  Thanks in advance.

You'll certainly get moderate-to-rabid encouragement here, based, for the most part, on folks' experience, realize that you're hearing things in a recent timeframe. If you haven't searched Google for "benefits of FrameMaker vs. Microsoft Word," "converting FrameMaker to Microsoft Word," and similar phrases without quotes, you'll probably miss out on the tremendous amount of historical discussions both pro and con.

As you digest the information, please post additional questions as they occur to you. It may be hard to believe, but due to the incredibly creative human brain, not every possible question has been asked, yet.

HTH

Regards,

Peter

_______________________

Peter Gold

KnowHow ProServices

[IsleofGough]

I've used Framemaker and Word for over a decade, and if I were in your position, I would convert the documents to unstructured Framemaker. Word documents with multiple revisions tend to get unstable if they have complicated numbering, tables, or figures - in my experience. If one religiously uses paragraph and character styles without overrides in Word, the documents will be better, but they are never as stable as Framemaker documents. If I have a complicated document to create and the end user wants it in Word, I often still use Framemaker to create the document and then convert to Word and tweak it a little in Word before sending it out.It really is that good.

I've tried giving up Framemaker to standardize on Word and InDesign several times in the past, but always go back to FM for long documents. I am still at FM 8, but I never get corruption of the FM files even with lots of crossreferences, multiple assigned master pages, and lots of tables and graphics. It is interesting that in January 2010, the cofounder of Adobe, John Warnock, felt that InDesign was still playing catchup to Framemaker (which he described as having "infinitely better" code than Pagemaker, on which InDesign was based).

Converting Word files to unstructured FM is easy, but conversion to structured FM is a lot of work, and I probably wouldn't go there without good reasons. I create many (not all) new documents in structured FM and there are benefits if you are considering repurposing these documents to XML or if you want to have others edit your documents and keep them working in a consistant format without overrides.

[SplishFish]

A lot of the work involved with conversion depends on the state of the Word documents. If they are neatly formatted with properly applied styles, the conversion will go smoother and faster. If they use "normal" style for everything from headings to bullets, you are going to have to spend more time cleaning up the Word documents on the front end.

Methods and preferences differ, but this document provides an excellent starting point for what you need to think of for conversion. It's a bit dated in software versions, but the basic principles are still sound.
http://www.techknowledgecorp.com/public/word2frame.pdf

I'm a bit like you with regards to using Word. There is nothing wrong with the program for pure word processing. (I prefer to make initial drafts in Word.) Where Word falls down, as mentioned, is for large documentation and long term maintainability.

Points where I find Frame superior:

• Cross references - You can set up the definitions to include text and formatting and have multiple elements (like heading text and page number) appear with one insert  And adding a page break before a referenced heading doesn't break the cross ref.If you want both the heading text and page number to appear in word, you need 2 inserts, plus you need to manually add any additional text like "See ABC on page x."
• TOCs and Indexes - Once you get a TOC or Index set up it pretty much maintains itself. Indexes just need the markers inserted to be kept current.
• Multiple-document books - This is the cornerstone of Frame's stability. Got 50 chapters, 50 pages each? Not a problem for Frame. Word does not really have an analogous function. The Master Document feature never worked. I cringe to think of a 2500 pg Word doc.
• Stable bulleting and numbering - Once you understand how the building blocks work, the numbers/bullets are applied like you expect them and stay that way.
• Variable text - Ever have a product name or company name change? If you use variables, one update saves lots of find/replace. Word's closest analog is field content, but Frame variables are configurable.
• Conditional text - Got 3 products that share pretty much the same documentation with a few key differences? You can keep all three versions in one Frame document and show each product's documentation at will. Word's closest analog is hidden text, but that's a one trick pony compared to Frame conditions.

I'm sure others have their favorite features. These are the ones I work with the most and see the most benefit.

Another benefit to Frame is that relatively few people in a given organization have the software, so it effectively restricts document editing to only a chosen few writers and "keeps the riff-raff out" of your documents. That alone can be worth the cost and effort.

[S_Reynolds]

  Thanks to all who responded.  To follow up, after spending some more time working with FrameMaker, I have decided to make the switch from Word.  My major concern (the time and effort required to convert existing Word documents to the FrameMaker format) has been alleviated, and based on what I have seen so far, as well as the selling points that were highlighted by some of the posters on this thread, it seems like the benefits will be worth the switch.

  Again, thanks for everyone's guidance.  I'm sure I will have more questions as I gain further exposure to the product; I look forward to talking with you further.