[Closed] FrameMaker 7.x/8 Feature Requests

Report · Aug 19, 2002

Time to start entering these. If you are unsure about whether FM has the feature yet, please do some research and figure it out before posting.

Please don't post requests for assistance in here, either.

Cheers,

Sean

Report · Apr 13, 2007

Equation editor suggestion:

I would like to be able to create a variable that has both a subscript and a superscript value on top of eachother. As opposed to coming after one another. For example, when a variable 'D' is given a superscript of 'Computed' and a subscript of 'Open', they do not appear directly above/below eachother. They are still superscripted and subscripted, however, one comes after the other depending on the order in which they are added.

Hopefully that made sense.

Report · Apr 13, 2007

Mike,

It makes sense. With the current version, you need to use the
micropositioning commands to align the superscripts and subscripts.

Report · May 21, 2007

The ability to place a variable in a hypertext link that can be modified on the variables dialog, so you only have to change the URL in one place and it changes it in all the hypertext links that contain that variable. That would help us a lot. Currently have to go into the mif file or do it one-by-one now. Ugly!

Report · May 21, 2007

Anna,

You might want to check out Scott Prentice's MarkerTools plug-in at
http://www.leximation.com/tools/info/markertools.php

This plug-in allows you to use FM variables as building blocks within
marker text at the file or book level.

Report · May 25, 2007

Is this thread still relevant, while a beta of version 8 (or possibly 7.x) already is out?
If it still is relevant, the following is a late request, simply because I havent seen many requests about the issue.

Most requests center on bugs and deficiencies with present features, but there are very few requests for improved drawing tools. One might argue that FrameMaker can never compete with dedicated drawing tools, such as Illustrator, so it could be considered meaningless to throw in more of such features.

However, I argue that there is a vast class of documents where figures basically consist of boxes, ovals and arrows, plus text lines as annotations on such drawings. I claim that it is extremely much more productive to use such built-in features of FrameMaker, if possible, rather than creating separate EPSs for all those simple figures. The reason is that through development, names of objects/functions/products will change, how functions work will change, new objects, etc. It is extremely fast to change those when the drawings are native to FrameMaker -- often, a simple find&replace is all you need to do.

Likewise, when documents are sent for translation, the translation agencies much prefer to translate figure text annotation if they are native to FrameMaker, rather than having to go into each and every EPS and translate texts! In addition: text expansion, as a result of translation, often makes it necessary to fix positioning of the text lines, but there is no easy way for the translation agencies to fix that if the text is part of an EPS! In contrast, if it is part of FrameMaker, text positioning can more easily be adapted on proof reading the document, and sometimes even the graphics may need to be moved to make room for the expanded annotations.

So, in summary: I claim there is a strong need for improving the drawing tools. In addition, I claim that it can be done with only small impacts on the user interface and the native file format.

Suggestions:

(1) Like character and paragraph formats, graphics should be assigned formats, specifying attributes such as line widths, color fill, arrow style etc. By that method, it would be possible to import graphic formats, so that, for instance, all network boxes appear the same, all information arrows get a coherent style, and all annotation arrows another style. The whole behavior would be coherent with the rest of the FrameMaker GUI.

(2) Stroke and Fill must of course be given separate properties it must be possible to draw a square with black path (stroke) and some colored fill.

(3) Arrows must be given a style name, so I can apply a coherent arrow style. The user must be able to define new named arrow styles, specifying size and angles. Same thing for dashes.

(4) There should be features to either lock certain objects, or a simple layered structure. Thereby, it will be much simpler to select and edit objects that sit on top of a background object (some other square/oval). Layering will undoubtedly affect the file format and make it more complex, but it might perhaps be adequate to simplify it to only a fixed two-layered model.

(5) Since the basic Bezier curves are the same as those in Illustrator, I see no reason that the GUI way to edit them should be different! Likewise, it should be possible to cut a rectangle (or other object) into two pieces of polygons, just as you do in Illustrator this has no impact at all on the file format!

(6) There are of course many other things to be whished, but the above are the basic ones. However, there is one other important thing related to graphics, and that is color! I take for granted that the next major version of FrameMaker can handle color profiles and color management, but I think that is an issue that has been elaborated in other requests reliance on the Windows GDI simply has to be done away with!

/Harald

Report · May 25, 2007

Harald,

Excellent points.

FYI, this thread will be closed and permanently archived when a) the
new version of FM is released or b) the Forums are switched over to
their new version, whichever comes first.

At that point there will be a Feature Request sub-forum created where
the requests will be by topic instead of one long thread as it is
currently.

Arnis Gubins
Forum host

Report · May 25, 2007

Excellent points, agreed.

I would say that FrameMaker's curve handling is inferior and would need significant rework. I'd like to be able to rely on FrameMaker for drawing, as well. But, I think I'd like to add support for layers, so my wants push the envelope some.

I use Illustrator and, yes, I put text on a text layer that, for translation, requires you open the file in Illustrator. I could require callout text be in FrameMaker, but don't need to so don't.

Thanks for the heads up Arnis.

Cheers,

sean

Report · May 25, 2007

> Excellent points, agreed.

This whole thread is a nice pastime, but also a waste of time.
You need to understand that the logic behind a feature request,
the possible ease of implementation, the corrections of bugs,
any time saved for the users, etc. are of very little importance
when it comes to Adobe's prioritizing of feature requests.

There is one single factor that outweighs all other: money.
If there is no return of investment for the development work,
it doesn't matter how urgent or helpful the request is.
If you have enough FM licenses behind you (in the order of 10,000)
only then your vocie will be heard. Money talks.
If you get 1,000 people to sign up for your feature request,
it still won't have a chance if Boeing or Nortel demands to
have a "Select all" button in the Import Formats dialog (say).

OK, I'm being unfair, that's not entirely true. Adobe really wants
to embrace new technologies, new file formats, new buzz words in the
industry. That will help selling new licenses, so that's in, too.
Will your feature request attract *new* users and make them buy
FM instead of some competitor? No? Tough luck.

Why do you think we have so many long-standing bugs and really
self-evident fixes in FM that never get addressed?
Because no-one at Adobe has realized them yet, and they just
need you to point them out? In this forum? *smile*
Have you kept paying Adobe year after year to get your FM license
upgraded to the new version/release? OK then. Think like Adobe:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Given the choice to spend resources fixing bugs and shortcomings,
or not to do it, when the existing users still will pay Adobe
for an upgrade without any fuzz, what path will a "modern"
quarterprofit-driven corporation take?

A "better" approach is to adapt your work-flow, use of technologies
and tools, etc. to where the "industry" is going, according to Adobe.
Then you will get much more buck for the money you spend on upgrades.
"Don't ask what Adobe can do for you, but what you can do for Adobe"

What? Don't you *need* structure, XML and 3-D CAD support?
Do you live in the stone-age where paper is still king?
Think for yourself and make your own choices.

BTW, this *could* be labelled as Adobe-bashing.
Don't reply, just consider your options.

Report · May 25, 2007

Thanks for your positive reactions to my comments...

A small note on translation:
The translator agencies I have dealt with always extract texts into rtf files, which they send to translators (along with a pdf of the original) -- the final translators simply don't have access to Illustrator! So, for EPS, the translator agency extracts texts from the ascii representation of the EPS! Hence, the result can be "somewhat arbitrary". They hate to be forced to open graphics files to fiddle with those on the final touch up, and I understand them, since it can cause zillions of problems with fonts and color management.

When I have EPS, I try to delete all text from the EPS, and place corresponding text lines in FrameMaker on top of the EPS, with proper setting of left/center/right alignment to cater for text expansion in the "correct" direction. For this purpose, I still need arrows and lines for the callout/annotation -- and I never use the default sizes/angles of FrameMaker arrows. Hence, even in this scenario, I need arrow styles to be consistent, and preferably be able to import arrow styles into documents.

/Harald

Report · May 27, 2007

Thomas Michanek, although you said "don't reply", I'll do that anyway:

Actually, I fully and totally agree with you about the "waste of time" etcetera -- actually, that is the exact reason why I have not bothered writing anything in this thread until recently!!

Long ago, I gave up sending bug reports to Adobe. So why did I bother to write these suggestions? Well I just got inspired to give these suggestions, even though it is probably a complete waste of time -- but maybe the suggestions can at least inspire colleagues reading this forum... It may spawn thoughts, and it seems it already has...

There is one thing, however, I'd like to comment:
You asked (rhetorically):
"Will your feature request attract *new* users and make them buy FM instead of some competitor?"
Well, that depends on if Adobe really wants to attract new users! IF they do, I know for certain that they have to implement things somewhere along my requests! However, they also need to do a lot of other things, such as "adobefy" the user interface.

Many many times, I have asked myself: Since I think that FM is so superior, shouldn't I try to make people I know try it? Unfortunately, I come to the conclusion that: no, they will not at all like it! Why: Because they are accustomed to the way other programs work, and coming to the current FM will not at all trigger any "wow"! If they continue to use it, however (unlikely), they will of course, like me, discover the power. Telling them about the power is not enough -- they have to feel the power.

With the complete transfer of development to India, and a version 8 no longer being wishful rumors, I got inspired! Maybe, after all these years, Adobe actually wants to expand the user base? It's not that difficult. I have always known that the primary reason they (Adobe) did not do that in the late 90s was that they were afraid of Microsoft -- a head-on collision/clash with MS Word would make MS go to war, and Adobe would loose, since MS can easily break all the other Adobe apps if they want to, because Adobe is sooo dependent on the low levels of Windows, and an intimate cooperation with MS.

Going where "the industry" seems to be going has made many people go to InDesign; to my surprise I must say, since I have always known that ID can never ever take over FM power -- and time has shown I was right, and Adobe is not particularly interested in making ID into some "tech manual authoring machine". IF something takes over FM, it will be something completely different, probably XML-based. ID is great, but it's only great for what it's intended for.

I remember many professionals saying (before version 7.2) that "multiple undo is not at all an important issue". But it is obvious that you can't sell new licenses of a program lacking multiple undo! In this case, the old-time professionals must understand that even if they can live without that feature, new users can't. Likewise, you can't sell new licenses of a program with built-in drawing tools, if it behaves like the current FM! No simple way to apply your own set of arrows? Or your dashes? Can't draw a square box with black stroke and blue fill? Try to tell the new user: "thou shall make an eps with illustrator of that square"!

See what I mean?
For years, Adobe did not quite know what to do with FM. Maybe they now know? And it is NOT to kill it (which so many ID aficionados seem to want to). I don't know their thoughts or directions. But MAYBE Adobe really wants to expand the user base, and if so, there are lots of easy ways to make FM just so much nicer!

Personally, I "went structured" late 2005, and I wouldn't have done that if I didn't believe that was the future. However, you don't have to do XML round tripping to get the benefits of structured -- it is a very powerful environment by itself, completely disregarding XML. But structured by itself won't attract "the masses". I believe, that it is the combination of structured with many other things that can make authoring "nice-and-easy", in addition to powerful and elegant, and with context sensitive "automatic" formatting. Dreams?

Report · May 28, 2007

well, as far as illustration tools go, I'm with Sean -- much rather use InDesign or Illustrator to do the graphics, and just have better layers in Frame to handle text variations.

As for new features, a trivial but important item: better promotion of third-party add-ons. Each year I pick up a couple more of these and kick myself for not having having used them sooner.

Report · May 29, 2007

With regard to Timothy's comment (#604), I'd point to the Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird model as a great example of how third-party add-ons (nee extensions) can improve a baseline product.

The add-on model is especially pertinent given the absurdly glacial pace at which Adobe is grudgingly bringing FrameMaker into the late twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first century...

Report · Jun 22, 2007

How goes the OSX version? :)

Report · Jul 04, 2007

Add features that support text borders and shading;

Add features that support text highlighting;

Add more underline styles, such as wave underline, etc;

Add support for vertical direction of Chinese text;

In "Find and Replace", format paragraphs with specified text with specified paragraph style rather than character format;

Allow user to specify punctuation rules, e.g. whether a semicolon can appear at the beginning of a line.

Report · Jul 05, 2007

Alex_Zhao@adobeforums.com wrote:

> Allow user to specify punctuation rules, e.g. whether a semicolon can
> appear at the beginning of a line.

What do you want to happen when a rule needs to be broken? There's
nothing more annoying than (for instance) typing a lower-case letter at
the beginning of a sentence in Word and having it magically and
repeatedly turn itself into an upper-case letter. Maybe I want to begin
a sentence lower case. Maybe I want to start a line with a semicolon. I
used to key codes and then search/replace the codes for styles and
formatting, codes like ;bl for a bulleted list. These would, of course,
begin the line.
--
Kenneth Benson
Pegasus Type, Inc.
www.pegtype.com

Report · Jul 05, 2007

Regarding Allow user to specify punctuation rules, e.g. whether a semicolon can appear at the beginning of a line, et al.

I'm increasingly thinking that supplementary extensions would be a far better way to solve these sorts of customization and special workflows problems.

That is to say that rather than embeddding a closed-source punctuation or grammar checker into an increasingly large, monolithic, unwieldy FrameMaker program proper, a more open architecture would allow the FrameMaker community to develop the myriad and fully-featured plugins that the product's twenty-first century user base wants and needs.

Is not it ironic, after all, that FrameMaker -- a formerly ground-breaking desktop computer publishing program -- is today imprisoned in a twenty-years-old mainframe mentality?

In the "bad old days", one was obliged to go hat-in-hand to the I.T. department where soi-disant experts would decide if the user's (users? pah!) computing needs fit into their grand plans. If the high priests of I.T. deigned to address those needs, the result was absurdly time consuming and almost never what the user really wanted.

The desktop computer changed all that in a hurry. Users became free to put computing power directly to work solving their problems.

Alas, FrameMaker today remains a prisoner of Adobe's (a.k.a. "the I.T. department's") whims if not inertia. While the small amount of new-found effort and energy being applied to the notional FrameMaker 8 is a dramatic improvement over the former amount -- none -- progress remains absurdly slow: If Adobe developed chips the same way it has "developed" FrameMaker, we'd still be using 8-bit processors running at 4 mHz, 8-1/4" Shugart floppies, and monochrome CRTs.

As such, my Ultimate Enhancement Request is for Adobe to either develop FrameMaker in something approximating real-time or get the [heck] out the way so that those who want and need twenty-first century features can realize them before the twenty-second century arrives.

I'll turn in my soapbox, now...

Cheers & hope this helps,
Riley

Report · Jul 05, 2007

> find and replace

Take a look at "replace by pasting" in case that's what you're trying for

Report · Jul 25, 2007

I'd like to have the possibility to create a "review assistant", "Quality control assistant" or similar. I imagine this being an automated function that helps you ensure that your document complies with the common style guide that your writing team has agreed upon. It could be a little character that shows up on the side of the screen and gives you helpful advice on how to improve your document.

My department currently has a "usage guide" in the shape of a .chm file, but I would like to see that information plugged in directly to Framemaker. I realise you can, at least in part, implement this through a custom dictionary but I would like to be able to leave more extensive feedback too. This way the tool will not only serve to correct writers but to also educate them.

Report · Jul 25, 2007

Ola_Davidsson@adobeforums.com wrote:

> It could be a little character that shows up on the side of the
> screen and gives you helpful advice on how to improve your document.

Yeah, we could call him "Clippy" or maybe "Adobe Bob".

This is a joke, right?

--
Kenneth Benson
Pegasus Type, Inc.
www.pegtype.com

Report · Jul 25, 2007

Now the Acrobat Professional 8.1 is available, how about beefing up FrameMaker to facilitate PDF conversion for Section 508 accessibility.

Report · Jul 30, 2007

*** This thread is now closed ***

With the release of FrameMaker 8.0, a specific wish list sub-forum has been setup. Please go to: FrameMaker Wish List

Report · Apr 04, 2009

Report · Nov 08, 2009

If you search any feature please view http://www.toolboxforme.com.
There is a list of all additional features fro FrameMaker 6.0, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 8.x and 9.x.