[Closed] FrameMaker 7.x/8 Feature Requests

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.

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?

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

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

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

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!

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.

I absolutely agree and second message #466 above: Please update the Equation Editor!

Use LaTeX as your gold standard for appearance.

I've been frustrated for many versions on the clipping that shrinkwrapping does to the diacritical marks, and the strange placement given to some of these marks, as documented in #466. Manually editing and microadjusting don't work for me, when I'm cranking out a technical paper comprising dozens if not hundreds of equations.

Native FM interface to connect with external JSR-283, iECM-ready resources (e.g. arbitrary platform-neutral DMSs).

Die, EDD, die.