Differences between 7 and 8 for long books

Report · Mar 10, 2010

I am considering FM 7 and 8 for producing a long book. The issue with 8 is that it requires SP2 on XP, and I can't put that on my writing system.

So that would favour 7 unless its features are noticably lacking compared to 8. Here are the book requirements, please read carefully --

* There are 4 parallel columns spread across 2 facing pages -- each column has its own text, layout, font and size, different from texts in other columns.

* All 4 columns in the spread (2 on even pages, 2 on odd pages) must retain their positions on the spread, no matter which page of the book you turn to.

* There is absolutely no left to right wrapping of columns in a parallel column layout. This means all columns flow down - even to even, and odd to odd.

* This page flow must be automatic -- I am simply NOT going to draw frames for all pages and manually link them across a 400 page book, it is absurd.

I need to know which one of 7 or 8 supports automatic wrapping of 2 columns on even pages to the next even page, and the two columns on the right odd pages to the next odd page (if you don't understand this requisite column flow, please leave it for other to reply who do -- thank you). If both FM 7 and 8 are more or less the same, that would be very helpful information too. Please give compative capabilities as it relates to parallel book columns.

BTW, another really crucial feature is being able to manually set a FIXED line height in each column -- not in point size, like InDesign does (that does not work for precise alignment) -- I should be able to specify the line height in each column in decimals of an inch. Which one can do this?

Your help on these specific questions is much appreciated. Please no discussion of FM 9. I will not be getting that version. Thanks

Report · Mar 11, 2010

ScratchyBoy wrote:
[...] please read carefully --

…are we in school here?

Anyway, the layout engine has not changed since FrameMaker version 5.5 or so. The one major benefit of FrameMaker 8 is Unicode support, which will be of interest if your material is going to be translated to any non-Western or non-Far-East language.

* This page flow must be automatic -- I am simply NOT going to draw frames for all pages and manually link them across a 400 page book, it is absurd.

That is why you are doing it in InDesign, isn’t it?

Well, FrameMaker does support as many text flows as you would like to have, but automatic text flow is supported from page to page, and not from odd to odd or even to even. There are several options to handle the request, for which one would have to discuss further details.

(if you don't understand this requisite column flow, please leave it for other to reply who do -- thank you).

Thank you for this warning.

Sincerely,

- Michael Müller-Hillebrand

Report · Mar 11, 2010

Michael,

Just an aside question...I do not use multiple flows, but if each column has a different flow (that is, four different flows) and the odd master page has two of the flows and the even page has the other two flows, then won't FrameMaker get it right? I am thinking that maybe the user will have to add the pages manually, but once added won't the flows work correctly? Just curious.

ScratchyBoy,

Yes, you can specify a fixed line height in inches, but FrameMaker converts it to points anyway, even fractions of a point if necessary. If your columns are all sized the same and have the exact same TOP position on the page, I cannot believe that specifying the line height in inches instead of points is necessary to make the alignment across the columns work; they are just different units of measure. Just be sure to select the Fixed box next to the line height.

Van

Report · Mar 11, 2010

Reply to all --

Michael -- sorry for sounding like I am schooling, but you have no idea how many people misunderstand what type of page flow parallel columns require. So are you saying that I cannot setup a page linking (say on the first 2 spreads) that will automatically propagate through the rest of the document as I add text. Or are you saying that I can? With InDesign, it cannot do odd-to-odd and even-to-even page linking automatically, which is exactly why I am looking to Frame Maker, because I was told that it could.

Van -- That is the problem with InDesign -- it allows only points for line height, and although you would think it would line up, the lines in fact do not line up, and I think I know why, but am not going to speculate. It's handling of points does not force an exact line spacing either for lines or white space.

Art -- SP1a, and the differences between system-level resources of SP1a and SP2 are inconsequential for an application like InDesign.

Jeff -- Of course there are versions of 7 and 8 for sale, you just have to check around. I already have 8 and am close to buying 7.

So since you are all now defensive because I tried hard to focus people's attention on the key issue -- let's get back to the key issue if you don't mind. And that is -- can I set up a beginning vertical flow for all 4 columns (by linking 2 columns on p.2 to the next 2 on p. 4 -- and by lining 2 columns on p. 3 to their wrap columns on p. 5) and will FM then continue that vertical flow without me having to manually link every blessed page in the 400 page book -- or is it incapable of continuing the flow I set out on the first 4 pages? I guess that is the crux of the question, because if it cannot, I was also mislead about FM's abilities, as I was with InDesign.

If it can't, what other features does FM have over ID that make it better for long book production?

Also Van, would you be interested in trying 4 columns of different fonts and sizes and attempting to line them all up in FM, and check it for me?

Report · Mar 11, 2010

While I don't have time to test out four columns for you, a similar thread

posted this week shows that it can be done for two columns. So I would image

four columns with different flows would also work. Here's the thread if you

want to check it out: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/591476?tstart=0

Also, I'm not sure why you're looking at FM 7 or 8, but there is a trial

version of FM 9 available for download and testing.

Report · Mar 11, 2010

Mike --

That weird work-around is indecipherable to me (column less than a character width??) -- would you care to explain it in the context of this thread?

The reason Jay posted that is because he was on my question in InDesign, realized the serious failing of InDesign to handle a 2-page spread of parallel columns, and obviously wanted to see if FM could do it. He did a book in FM with only 2 columns, hence the "entrenched" concept of even-to-odd page flow worked fine for him.

I've read 100+ books with parallel texts like I am describing -- I'm sure there are 1000s I haven't read with a similar layout. It takes scarcely 2 seconds to realize, seeing the 2 page spread, that even page columns MUST wrap to even page columns, and odd to odd. It's not some "unusual, special" request, it is a necessary requirement of any parallel columns spread across facing pages. But it seems Adobe developers either never read any scholarly texts, or they just don't understand parallel texts -- period.

Maybe the truth came out in your thread. Framemaker, as it was originally conceived by the original developers, DID allow correct page flow for parallel columns -- but once Adobe got it, they killed that ability, dumbing it down to InDesign's level, which cannot do it. Peter so much as admitted that fact on that thread, that somewhere in the versions, this feature was killed -- confirming what I said above.

Why should I even consider FM 9 ?? Adobe wants $1000 bucks for it -- they brag on its "improved features for book production". What a laugh! They don't seem to be able to comprehend how many scholarly texts across a breadth of subject areas use parallel texts. I'd love for someone to say: "YES !! I'm proud to announce that FrameMaker can do this natively out of the box !! " But I don't see it coming, do you?

Report · Mar 11, 2010

The workaround is there because of FM's default behaviour when automatically creating and adding new pages.

For multiple flows to correctly and automatically propagate to all new right/left pages, they *must* exist on *all* of the right/left pages. In order to get the alternating "appearance", you need to make the flow containers (text frames) on the page that you do NOT want to see the content on small enough so that they will not be able to hold/display a single character at the specified font size. FM will then send the content for that text frame to the next available container (text frame) that can hold the text in the flow, which is on the following page. If the body page doesn't exist yet, then FM creates it from the appropriate Master page (this is the purpose of the "autoconnect" setting for the text frames/flows).

If you did not have a container for the specified flow on the "next" Master page to be used, FM does not insert a blank page and jump to the following page with the desired container as you might expect. Instead, it will insert a Body page using the next Master page and add the same size and location of the current container (text frame) on it containing the text that you want on the "next" page. So to prevent that from happening, you need a tiny container for that flow to already exist on the Master page in order satisfy FM's internal logic for creating the new Body page. You just need to fool it with a very small.

Exactly what the size required for a very "small" container is another issue and FM has some internal limits through the GUI as to what you can specify. However, programmatically or through the MIF format, you can create much smaller containers - but there is a lower limit that if exceeded will make FM blow its mind or crash.

In your scenario, you will have to set up the Master pages so that all four flows (text frames) are on both Left and Right Master pages, but on the Left page the containers (text frames) for the Right pages need to be very, very small and conversely on the Right pages, the containers for the Left page content need to be very, very small. In theory, this should work, but FM is quite ornery even in an alternating two flow scenario as pointed to in the other thread, so trying to do this "automatically" for four flows is pretty much a crap shoot. The order in which you populate your flows can affect how FM decides to add pages (and does depend upon the phase of the moon as to what may happen...) You may find that you sometimes get a custom "Right" page where a Left should be with containers from both Right and Left master pages.

Can FM do this out of the box? Probably, but it would require a very skilled operator and would be extremely painful and frustrating, IMHO.

The alternative approach (and what I would do in your situation) would be to use FrameScript to pre-seed your documents with a specified number of correctly laid out pages and connected flows, so that you can then enter your four "columns" (text frames) of text as needed. This would not be a trivial script either.

Regarding your other requirement of setting a fixed "grid" for the baselines of text in each "column" (i.e. a text frame in your case), FM does have the ability to synchronize baselines for paragraphs, but this is specified only as a function of the line spacing used in the paratags and is designed for multiple columns in a text frame. However, setting all text frames (flows) with the same settings ensures that items stay lined up across the frames, provided that these frames are all identically sized and start at the same vertical location on the page. It also requires you to define your other paratags (e.g. headings) to have appropriate multiples of the line spacing used for the body paragraph tags. Again, this not quite what you are asking for nor automated in its setup, but it can be done with a little effort.

Report · Mar 11, 2010

Thank you very much, Arnis, for a helpful post.

"but on the Left page the containers (text frames) for the Right pages need to be very, very small and conversely on the Right pages, the containers for the Left page content need to be very, very small."

So I actually have to put 4 text frames on each page (even though only 2 are wanted), i.e., 2 real and 2 narrow "fake" ones, to get FM to wrap columns odd-to-odd and even-to-even pages, is that correct?

Report · Mar 11, 2010

ScratchyBoy wrote:
Mike --
That weird work-around is indecipherable to me (column less than a character width??) -- would you care to explain it in the context of this thread?

I noticed that Arnis has already explained the reason for using a tiny frame in each thread to carry the flow across pages where you don't want to display that content.

The reason Jay posted that is because he was on my question in InDesign, realized the serious failing of InDesign to handle a 2-page spread of parallel columns, and obviously wanted to see if FM could do it. He did a book in FM with only 2 columns, hence the "entrenched" concept of even-to-odd page flow worked fine for him.
You know, I have personally read 100+ books with 4 parallel texts like I am describing, and I am sure there are thousands of ones I haven't read with a similar layout. It takes scarcely 2 seconds to realize, looking at the 2 page spread, that even page columns MUST wrap to even page columns, and odd to odd. It's not an "unusual, special" request, it is a NECESSARY REQUIREMENT of 4 parallel columns spread across facing pages. Surely you can see that? But it seems that Adobe developers either never read any scholarly texts, or they just don't understand parallel texts -- period.

Have you contacted the folks who created the books you're referring to, to learn what tools they used for the books? Just seeing the final print version, or even the PDF, can't reveal the underlying construction.

Maybe the truth came out in that thread. Framemaker, as it was originally conceived by the original developers, DID allow correct page flow for parallel columns -- but once Adobe got it, they killed that ability, dumbing it down to InDesign's level, which cannot do it. Peter so much as admitted to that fact on that thread, that somewhere in the versions, this feature was killed. Which confirms the above paragraph.

Winfried Ring responded to my question about the feature not working in later FrameMaker releases, in that other thread, that the technique still works in later FrameMaker releases. The key, Winfried pointed out, is to begin the document with one body page, regardless of whether it's a single-page or facing-page layout. This keeps FrameMaker from getting confused about where the flows should go on the new pages it creates as any of the flows grows to the point that it creates a new page.

I think you're trying to imagine how these techniques will work, rather than trying them out hands-on. I've done that myself; it's a good learning style for some things, but in this particular case, you need the empirical experience of seeing how the software's built-in mechanisms behave. Until and unless you do it and gain the experience, you can't imagine, project, empathize, conjure, or visualize how these things work. You do have a clear vision of what you want for the end result, however.

In FrameMaker, as in InDesign, as in PageMaker, as in QuarkXpress, you draw text frames on document pages, or on master pages, using a text frame tool. It's named differently in each application.

The tools are for users to apply their vision and creativity, so if you need a certain kind of layout, you need to lay it out yourself. If your particular layout were common, there would very likely be at least one template for available in each professional publishing tool's community.

Why should I even consider FM 9 ?? Adobe wants $1000 bucks for it -- they brag on its "improved features for book production". What a laugh! They can't even conceive of scholarly comparative books across a HUGE gamut of subject areas -- so why should I consider it ?? I'd love for someone to tell me: "YES !! I am proud to announce that FrameMaker can do this natively out of the box !! " But I don't see it coming, do you?

Professional tools cost huge money to develop. If you use them professionally, your work should bring in the revenue to pay for the tools.

As has been said by many posters on many threads in regards to most software, especially the professional tools, it's very unlikely that you'll find a legitimate copy of a past version for sale. The older the version, the less likely there will be a legit copy on some dealer's shelf that pops up, and is put on eBay for a song. It's illegal to sell old versions that one uses to upgrade to a new version. You'll not be able to register the license; in recent versions of Adobe products, you won't be able to use the software at all after the trial period expires, without a valid license.

Using a license cracking tool is also illegal.

It sounds as if your hardware and Windows version limitations are constraining your software choices. It's a tough set of choices.

Oh, BTW, here's a link to a PDF of a FrameMaker example of what I think you're talking about:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/363247/fm%207X7%204-parallel%20flows%20across%20same-side%20pages.recover.pdf

EDIT:

In the PDF, the small fragments of text are the "pass-through" threaded frames that Arnis described. They're larger than a single character, so you can see the text flow through; in real use, they should be teensy.

/EDIT

It's trickier in InDesign because it's built-in ability to create new pages as stories grow is trick to accomplish the same behavior. The In-Tools plugin that was mentioned can do this.

If you're persnickety about typographic control, InDesign is the better tool. FrameMaker isn't a slouch, it's just that InDesign's been bred for the task.

Regarding lining up the text across columns, InDesign and FrameMaker both can control baseline alignment. You'll need to try out both tools to decide which works the way you need.

HTH

Regards,

Peter

_______________________

Peter Gold

KnowHow ProServices

Report · Mar 11, 2010

"Until and unless you do it and gain the experience, you can't imagine, project, empathize, conjure, or visualize how these things work."

Totally incorrect. I've used DTPs for years including Adobe, I know how they work, even if lacking.

Peter you implications about illegal software are neither appropriate nor warranted for this thread.

Clearly, you have not looked. Again -- your post is detracting from the needs of this question --

"What are the differences between FM 7 and 8, and can either of them automate the page flow required?"

It would help this thread to remove much of your post that is not on the topic. The main point you added is this --

"The key, Winfried pointed out, is to begin the document with one body page, regardless of whether it's a single-page or facing-page layout. This keeps FrameMaker from getting confused about where the flows should go on the new pages it creates as any of the flows grows to the point that it creates a new page."

Which is VERY helpful to know. Sorry to say, the rest is rambling and opinion, and the quotes of my text only make it more arduous. Please don't be offended, I am looking for EXACT specifics here that will help me decide which version to use and if it will do the task. All other talk is irrelevant. Thank you for your understanding, that the experts in these forums can accelerate decisions because of their great experience. Side comments only detract.

Report · Mar 11, 2010

ScratchyBoy wrote:
"Until and unless you do it and gain the experience, you can't imagine, project, empathize, conjure, or visualize how these things work."
Totally incorrect. I've used DTPs for years including Adobe, I know how they work, even if lacking.
Peter you implications about illegal software are neither appropriate nor warranted for this thread.
Clearly, you have not looked. Again -- your post is detracting from the needs of this question --
"What are the differences between FM 7 and 8, and can either of them automate the page flow required?"
It would help this thread to remove much of your post that is not on the topic. The main point you added is this --
"The key, Winfried pointed out, is to begin the document with one body page, regardless of whether it's a single-page or facing-page layout. This keeps FrameMaker from getting confused about where the flows should go on the new pages it creates as any of the flows grows to the point that it creates a new page."
Which is VERY helpful to know. Sorry to say, the rest is rambling and opinion, and the quotes of my text only make it more arduous. Please don't be offended, I am looking for EXACT specifics here that will help me decide which version to use and if it will do the task. All other talk is irrelevant. Thank you for your understanding, that the experts in these forums can accelerate decisions because of their great experience. Side comments only detract.

What DTP product do you mean when you say "Adobe?"

The points about possible illegal software were meant to help you avoid being sold bogus goods, not to accuse you. Scamming of this kind is common. I bought a new package of Windows XP Professional from a highly-rated high-volume eBay seller. When it arrived, it looked totally legitimate, down to the holographic doodads. However, when I applied all the verification strategies at Microsoft, it failed! I contacted the vendor who immediately credited my account for the payment I'd made. However, the vendor didn't apologize for the problem product he shipped. He didn't say anything at all about this. No reason to call him a crook - he himself may have been scammed in purchasing the large number of these packages he was selling at low prices. However, he didn't take his other packages off the listings. Sorry if I wasn't clear that I was offering a caution, not an accusation.

I mentioned Winfried's point because it seemed that you had missed it, and, as I said, it's key.

My helping gene just gave out.

Best regards in your quest.

Peter

_______________________

Peter Gold

KnowHow ProServices

Report · Mar 11, 2010

Sorry Peter, did not mean to put you off, I am just focussed on a definitive solution to this problem of not being able to get the flow the layout requires.

I was a beta tester in the earliest Photoshop, I used Ventura, Quark, Page Maker and just about every other DTP last decade. Does this help?

Report · Mar 11, 2010

Scratchy,

You may have used other DTP products, but FM is quite a different beast in it's underlying design. Until you start using it, you really won't know what to expect at times. As far as the differences between versions, except for the use of Unicode introduced with FM8 and a whole whack of things on the structured side (XML, DITA and all that other stuff), the underlying page layout engine is the same for all versions (including 9). Consequently, an answer to your question about differences is totally irrelevant to your stated requirements, i.e. all versions have the same capabilities for multi-column layouts.

The caution about older versions should be heeded. The Adobe Licensing Server has a big memory and you may end up out of pocket.

The only way to decide if a tool is applicable for the task is to put it to the task. If you already have FM8, then try out the suggestions and see if you can work with it. If not keep looking. Have you looked at LaTex and its multi-column capabilities?

Report · Mar 11, 2010

Thanks Arnis -- again, very helpful information. But I can't "try out" FM8 because of the limitation I stated at the outset, it requires SP2 installed, and my book writing system can't have that -- which is why I am asking you experts this question. I can get a good feel for FM's abilities based on your expert input, and my experience tells me that I will find exactly what you say, except the product will be at first very hostile to deal with, as you've implied. Can Frame Maker handle javascript scripts like InDesign? This is not necessary, but just a question .... BTW, Latex is not feasible for WYSIWYG writing.

Report · Mar 11, 2010

There is an online trial version ("TestDrive") for FM9 as part of the TechComm Suite that can be run from the cloud. See: http://www.runaware.com/clients/adobe/techsuite/

Have you considered virtualizing your machine so that you can run your "book writing system" and something newer? Hardware's relatively cheap these days...

FM has a very powerful third-party scripting language called FrameScript. See http://www.framescript.com

Also have a look at http://www.frameexpert.com for some backgrounder tutorials on how it works and examples of the types of scripts that you can create.

(You never mentioned WYSIWYG as a requirement... )

Report · Mar 11, 2010

There is no point even trying FM9, I am simply not going to pay $1000 for any program, period. The links you gave are interesting, but look like pricey add-ons I don't need.

If WYSIWYG were not important, I would default to my original Wordstar 7.0 of more than 20 years ago. It could do parallel text AND even on alternating pages (Gasp!! A DOS program can do more than windows programs can??!!) You bet .... but it can't do WYSIWYG. The reason WYSIWYG is important for this special project is --

I am producing a book which has never been done before, nor the format conceived of before. I am pioneering a new type of book to compare texts vital to our history, with research pivotal to them, in parallel texts. For this, one MUST precisely line up every line of the 4 parallel texts across 2 facing pages, else the reader is totally lost. I did testing on InDesign, which limits you to a point system for deciding *character height*.

But, as I found out, "character height" does NOT equate to the original "line height" of most word processors -- give those WPs decimals of an inch, and they will start each line (even blank lines) on EXACTLY that position. Well, it is not so with Adobe's point system -- it simply doesn't align at all, when you look at it in detail. So that one failing alone kills InDesign for this type of very crucial pioneering project.

I have found that the WP called Lotus Word Pro does everything exactly correct with line height, headers and footers, even a perfect vertical aligning of comparative texts. It is a dream to work with compared to the rather inadequate InDesign (sorry to upset people, but I'm reporting facts here, not prejudice). The ONLY thing I've not been able to do in Word Pro is make columns wrap even-to-even and odd-to-odd pages. If it were not for that one issue, I never would even consider any DTP or FrameMaker -- they are too fiddly, and too much into a micromanagement click-here, now click-there interface to get productive work done. In total contrast, one can type full speed in Word Pro and the output equals or betters any DTP for production book output.

I'm sure it is asking too much of anyone here to try 4 columns on 2 facing pages with different font types and sizes, but equal "point height". If one did that in FM, including 2 lines for paragraph breaks, I suspect they will find the same flaw as with InDesign -- the texts do NOT line up in detail. So even if FM can be "hacked" to automate 4 columns, it doesn't help without equal vertical line positioning across all 4 parallel texts.

Report · Mar 12, 2010

ScratchyBoy wrote:
There is no point even trying FM9, I am simply not going to pay $1000 for any program, period. The links you gave are interesting, but look like pricey add-ons I don't need.
If WYSIWYG were not important, I would default to my original Wordstar 7.0 of more than 20 years ago. It could do parallel text AND even on alternating pages (Gasp!! A DOS program can do more than windows programs can??!!) You bet .... but it can't do WYSIWYG. The reason WYSIWYG is important for this special project is --
I am producing a book which has never been done before, nor the format conceived of before. In essense, I am pioneering a new type of book to compare texts vital to our history, and provide pivotal research behind them, all as parallel texts. For this need, one MUST precisely line up every line across the 4 parallel texts on 2 pages, else readers are totally lost. I did testing on InDesign, which limits you to a point system for deciding *character height*.
But, as I found out, "character height" does NOT equate to the original "line height" of most word processors -- give those WPs decimals of an inch, and they will start each line (even blank lines) on EXACTLY that position. Well, it is not so with Adobe's point system -- it simply doesn't align at all, when you look at it in detail. So that failing alone will kill InDesign for this type of very crucial pioneering project.
I have found that the WP called Lotus Word Pro does everything exactly correct with line height, headers and footers, even a perfect vertical aligning of comparative texts. It is a dream to work with compared to the rather inadequate InDesign (sorry to upset people, but I'm reporting facts here, not prejudice). The ONLY thing I've not been able to do in Word Pro is make columns wrap even-to-even and odd-to-odd pages. If it were not for that one issue, I never would even consider any DTP or FrameMaker -- they are too fiddly, and too much into a micromanagement click-here, now click-there interface to get productive work done. In total contrast, one can type full speed in Word Pro and the output equals or betters any DTP for production book output.
I'm sure it is asking too much of anyone here to just try 4 columns on 2 facing pages, with different font types and sizes, but of equal "point height". If someone did that in FM, including double white space for paragraph breaks, I suspect they will find the same as InDesign's flaw -- the texts do NOT line up. So even if FM can be "hacked" to get 4 columns, it is useless without absolutely strict vertical positioning of every line equal in all 4 parallel texts.

If I understand what you are describing correctly, the problem with achieving equal line heights with different font types may be due to how font sizes are defined. The nominal point size doesn't always measure the same glyphs or the same glyph property, so comparing a font by its nominal point size isn't always reliable.

FrameMaker's baseline alignment only works across the columns of multiple-column text frames; while InDesign has similar multi-column frame baseline alignment, its document-wide baseline grid can align text lines in separate text frames, as in the layout you want.

There is a discussion of how font size is defined at this link http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_8.htm from the result of a Google search for "definition of font size" (without quotes). There are other useful links in the result.

How would you achieve the same columns on odd page and same columns on even page layout in WordStar? Just curious.

Word can break table rows across boundaries, unlike FrameMaker and InDesign. Perhaps a Word table would be appropriate for your design.

HTH

Regards,

Peter

_______________________

Peter Gold

KnowHow ProServices

Report · Mar 12, 2010

Peter,

In ID, I had to use individual text frames, not the multi-column option. Is that the same in FM, or do I use its multi-column option? From the discussion above of using very narrow frames to force 4 columns, it sounds like I'd still have to use individual text frames in FM as well. If so, there is no way to precisely align the texts in parallel frames? This is a crucial issue. Thanks

Winfried,

Thanks for the links. It is simplyAdobe's choice to force a user to upgrade to SP2 -- and from my extensive OS knowledge of XP, I think the choice is purely artifical -- i.e. there is no real technical reason to require SP2, they just did it to make it appear like their products have "higher requirements". And besides, if there was a special module needed, they should have chosen a run-tiime addition. Good programmers have done this for decades, and it is the normal way to ensure functionality required by an application. There is nothing that can be done about it, so no point belabouring it.

Report · Mar 12, 2010

>In ID, I had to use individual text frames, not the multi-column option. Is

>that the same in FM, or do I use its multi-column option?

It's the same as ID. In a multi-column text frame, Frame jumps from the

bottom of one column to the top of the next in the same frame. So you'd have

to use four separate text frames as described earlier to get your text to

jump to a column two pages away.

If so, there is no way to precisely align the texts in parallel frames?
This is a crucial issue. Thanks

Yes, it is easy to do so. Font size and Line Space are separate settings in

FrameMaker paragraph styles. You can use different size fonts in each column

by using a different paragraph style in each. Just be sure to assign each

style a line height that's the same, and the lines will line up across text

frames. You may need to also adjust the "Above Pgf" and "Below Pgf" settings

for the particular paragraph formats. I just tried an example to confirm

that the lines line up.

Report · Mar 12, 2010

You mentioned in one of your posts that InDesign would not align the text from frame to frame. I believe it can. Note that InDesign allows you to set the start of the first baseline using several different methods. You need to make sure all four text frames use the same method. I think the simplest way would be to create a baseline grid in each frame and align your paragraphs to the baseline.

Report · Mar 12, 2010

Van Kurtz wrote:
You mentioned in one of your posts that InDesign would not align the text from frame to frame. I believe it can. Note that InDesign allows you to set the start of the first baseline using several different methods. You need to make sure all four text frames use the same method. I think the simplest way would be to create a baseline grid in each frame and align your paragraphs to the baseline.

Hi, Van:

I've noticed that even with baseline synchronization, sometimes text set in different combinations of font properties within the same font family, as well as within different font families, don't always appear visually level across columns. I think it's because some properties, or font family designs, position the glyphs differently in relation to the baseline. While the leading space may be level across the columns, some glyphs may appear slightly above or below the level.

Regards,

Peter

_______________________

Peter Gold

KnowHow ProServices

Report · Mar 12, 2010

Which supports what I said. If the program does not allow you to specify ABSOLUTELY a line height in fractions of an inch, or MM, then it will certainly suffer from this problem -- and a lot of the reason stems from its inability to handle white space correctly. Font height is nebulous, line height is not !!!

Report · Mar 12, 2010

Font height is not nebulous, it is an exact specification of the bounding box height used. The placement of the baseline within and the character x-height, descender and ascender heights all contribute to the visual appearance on the page when combined with other paragraph spacing parameters such as the line height and spacing above/below. Many users do not have sufficient typographical skills/experience to set things properly. FM is one those programs that does exactly what you tell it to (not what you want it to) and doesn't offer much automation to "fix" things.

72pt = 1.0in = 2.54cm = 25.4mm = 6pc = 67.374(didot) = 5.63cc (cicero) and all are equally valid and interchangeable units within FM.

FM specifes the character baseline at 1/3 the font size (font size is specified in points or Q units). The paragraph "line spacing" parameter specifies the distance between baselines (using *any* of the units mentioned above). However by default, the line spacing is not "fixed" (i.e. it allows oversized characters, in-line graphics, subscripts, superscripts, etc. to bump adjacent lines). There is a simple check-box setting to make it fixed but I've noticed that many users do not set it. There also are parameters that specify additional space above/below paragraphs, so if a user does not set these properly (i.e not a multiple of the line spacing) then this will throw off the appearance of the baselines on the page, even with base-line synchronization.

More details on FM's synchronization of an entire flow within text frames is discussed in the online help here: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FrameMaker/9.0/Using/WS75716A2C-F227-4643-9012-119E110AE42F.html#WSCCFEC...

Report · Mar 12, 2010

"There is a simple check-box setting to make it fixed"

That is what ID lacks. The problem is NOT the user, Arnis, I know exactly what I am doing. The problem is the software. Point size does not equate to an absolute line height. The classic single line height is 0.1667 inches. If the program allows setting an exact line height, there is no trouble. If it does not allow setting an exact line height, but is relative to a "font height" -- which "fonts" may or may not exist on every line -- then software is the problem, not the user. I hope that is clear to everyone. I can find leading settings instantly on ANY program. The more I work with ID, the more I see it avoids exact settings. "Grids" are just another patch-up fix for software failings. If FM allows for exact settings of line height, then that is a big plus for it.

Report · Mar 15, 2010

As Arnis points out, a point is a unit of length, 1/72 of an inch. Therefore, specifying a size in points is equivalent to specifying the size in inches. The application should, and both FrameMaker and InDesign, treat them the same.

InDesign can specify the line height to be fixed (Framemaker terminology); however, InDesign (as well as its predecessor PageMaker) treats leading (= line height) as a character setting NOT a paragraph setting; this is different from Quark XPress and standard printinger terminology. This may be unfortunate, but that is the way it is. ON THE OTHER HAND, one can create paragraph styles that specify the leading for the style; it is in the basic character formats section of the style dialog. So, for me setting the line height in InDesign is no issue.

In InDesign, I created two text frames each with the same fixed line height and the same fixed position of the first baseline (both 60 pt). The first frame was set in 36 pt Times, a serif PostScript font, and the second in 12 pt Arial, a nonserif TrueType font. In the seventh line of the first frame, I dragged a horizontal guide to what I would consider the baseline for that line, namely, the bottom of an lowercase H. Moving across to the second frame, I found that its seventh line sat squarely on the baseline.

So, I have done the experiment you requested and have found no problem.

Peter,

I believe that the font designer can (should or must) set where the baseline is within the font's bounding box. So, if a program knows where that baseline is, I would think that it should be able to set the type correctly. If the font design is sloppy, then that font will likely not look right when one tries to align it across columns. I understand that some characters in a font, such as a, c, t, o, etc sit a little below the baseline, because if they did not, then the human mind would perceive them as sitting above the baseline. In my experience, I have had no trouble with font baseline alignments.

Van