FrameMaker 8 versus InDesign CS 3 Question

[_Philip_Elder_]

This may seem like a silly question, but we need to ask it.

We have been building our technical manuals, books, and training materials in InDesign for quite a long time.

Is there a benefit to switching to FrameMaker for our technical writing needs?

I only stumbled onto the product site when looking for screen capture utilities via the Captivate 3 product page.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Philip E.

[_Monica_Valdez_]

I am responding to your screen capture comment, and just wanted to mention that we have been using SnagIt by TechSmith for about three years now. It it an excellent tool and has many features that one wouldn't expect for such a reasonable price (several input and output options, various edge effects, use of filtering; you can capture cascading menus, and on and on).

[MichaelKazlow]

FrameMaker's long document capabilities, variables, cross-referencing
make it a superior tool in my mind. However, the typography and color
handling in ID cannot be beat.

Mike

[_Karen_Dennison_]

Funny you should say that.
I'm actually on here investigating the same question. As I see it, I think InDesign is way more software than I need for the documents I'm creating. However, I haven't had time up until now to investigate if FrameMaker could do the job. As best I can tell, it can.
BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY . . having joined the STC this year, my intern and I lucked upon an interesting Webinar on SDL's Author Assistant software which I believe is NOT compatible with InDesign but IS compatible with FrameMaker. since I am working to "coin" a lot of terms for our engineers, this SDL Author Assist seems awesome (also compatible with the Word software we all use). So, I'm willing to go to Framemaker just to have the option to have Author Assist.

If however, Author Assist is more than our company will spend, I may just stick with InDesign so I don't have to recreate templates, tags, etc.

[Art_Campbell]

In addition to Mike's comments about Frame's strengths, a lot depends on how you see your documentation. For stand alone pieces, ID is fine. If you're more interested in an integrated documentation set, and being able to generate long and integrated documents from templates. FM would be the better engine.

You may want to read Adobe's own take on the strengths of the two programs and their place in the scheme of things... it's on the corp. www site.

Art

[_Timothy_Heck_]

I use both InDesign and FrameMaker: ID for shorter design-intensive "stand alone" documents that do not require frequent updates, FM for the continuously updated 7,000+ pages of user documentation, distributed as 15 separate PDFs and as a single integrated context-sensitive web help system (via Quadralay's WebWorks Publisher).

I also use ID for complex diagrams that are then imported into FM as PDFs.

IMPORTANT NOTE
At least half of "FrameMaker functionality" is not in FM itself but in the various add-ons available... I think that if you just look at FM and ID on their own, the advantages of FM for big doc sets are less obvious (but still significant).

[_Monica_Valdez_]

About Tim's Important Note: We have been using v7.2 with NO add-ons or plug-ins, just the two updates 7.2b144 and 7.2p158, since it was released. We've worked on large, complex document sets (both Standard and XML) and things have been pretty much doable although, of course, we have the usual gripes, wish list items, and periodic "what were they thinking?!" jaw droppers. We just received our upgrade to v8.0 (one copy for testing purposes) and are about to take the plunge.

[_Philip_Elder_]

Hey all,

Awesome feedback folks.

I have downloaded the trial version of FM8 as well as Captivate 3.

It looks as though we will need to install everything and have a go at it.

Please feel free to continue the responses! :)

Thanks,

Philip E.
MPECS Inc.

[_thomas_bro_]

In techincal documentation typography should be the least of your worries. Content, structure is by far the more important issues. So a comparison of ID and FM on that account is in my mind not relevant (I even have two PDF's one from ID and one from FM. There is no apparent diffence).

It all lies in the nature of your documentation which product you should choose. The more structure, the more interactivity, the more inter document references you need the more FM is a preferred product. ID is the opposite. So when you write Technical documentation, a more in-depth description is needed (I think) for an objective answer to your question.

I once did a Technical Documentation in WordPad!!!!

If you write documentation with "just" text, ANY product can be used. ID might even be poorer than Word !

The remark made in thhis thread to look into the Adone website is very important. A few years ago thre was no real explanation as to the differences between FM and ID. There certaintly is now. Even the Adobe herd of evangelists are now doing a very good effort to clearly tell that ID and FM are two extremely different products for different purposes.

If you are looking for a product that can interact with the outside world (database in/out, xml, websites, webhelp etc. FM wins hands down.

keep smiling
thomas

[_Philip_Elder_]

Thomas,

I did have a look for some comparisons on Adobe's site and I must have missed them. I will look into it further.

And, you are right: we need to be clear on what we need to be doing with the documentation and how we are going about it.

An example is a multiple chapter manual on the usage of the Remote Web Workplace in Small Business Server/Essential Business Server. Each chapter being dedicated to each Web enabled element therein.

The manual is quite complex with sections and subsectionis that contain images, screen shots, tables, and the like.

It will be published to PDF as well as SharePoint sites, and if possible, SharePoint based Wiki (still under investigation).

We have a number of other technical books that we write when we do technical assessments for our clients, or updated audit trails that would be nice to convert to a Web based system accessible to the client only ... this is where I think, based on your descriptions, FM may make the day.

Again, thank you all very much for the input. This is very helpful as I am in the dark about many of the aspects of what we are trying to achieve! :)

Philip

[_thomas_bro_]

Philip

Define Chapter!

What I mean is that the FM buildingblocks can be used in a number of different combinations inside or in-between documents.

A chapter is NOT always defined because you use a building block called <chapnum>. Used in another way the <n+> can equally be a chapter. And then again I can have several chapters within one FM document. It can be quite complex.

On top of this you are asking about a numbering system for the page numbers that have to reflect the above mentioned 'chapters'. Therefore in order to do this (if it can be done), it is crucial that the numbering system is correct!

keep smiling
thomas

[Art_Campbell]

http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/comparison.html

Art

[_thomas_bro_]

Philip

My comment before was to another thread. Please disregard.

keep smiling
thomas

[_thomas_bro_]

Philip

Do you use (or want to)

1) Cross-references to images, tables, section numbers
2) Need for hyperlinks to inside documents or outside sources
3) Conditional text (i.e. text that can be shown or hidden, depending on it needs
4) MasterPages that changes because CONTENT on the page changes. E.g. a landscape due to a large table. This has to happen because the CONTENT 'tells' it to.
5) PDF files from different projects where links work in-between these PDF's
6) Ability to transform content into e.g. Acrobat Forms

FM can handle all the above
ID not (yet as that Adobe department will tell you)

keep smiling
thomas

[peter_minneapolis]

Hi, Philip:

I don't think you've stated why you're considering other solutions than the InDesign one you're already using. If you could state your satisfactions and dissatisfactions with ID it would be helpful to you, as well as to anyone who might have a suggestion or recommendation.

I looked at the comparison at http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/comparison.html
and found marketing-speak that clouds some of the information. There's also some comparison of features that aren't close-enough counterparts to be compared. Finally, some third-party tools are mentioned that supplement FM, but some that supplement ID aren't mentioned; for example, cross-references.

One example of an incomplete comparison is drawing tools. You can do a lot with FM's rudimentary drawing tools (they were advanced when first introduced, but they haven't evolved.) ID's drawing tools are Illustrator-class.

If your workflow uses external tools and simply places them into your documents, superiority or inferiority of the drawing tools are a non-issue. Similarly, other aspects of your workflow may indicate which features of which product should carry weight when deciding on the most appropriate tool.

RE: Thomas Bro's points:

* InDesign lacks FrameMaker's ability to apply master pages depending on body-page content; however, FM added this recently - in the past it was available as a third-party tool. ID's designed as a container of plug-ins; there are many third-party tools extend it, both plug-ins and scripts. ID's also designed to be scripted by relative amateurs as well as professional developers.

* There's a cross-reference plug-in for ID, from dtptools.com, that's a bit more advanced than FM's built-in. Like FM, they become links in PDF documents.

* Although ID currently lacks conditional text, XML manipulations can do the same thing. In fact, there are third-party XML tools for FM that claim to offer more conditional flexibility than FM itself.

(PS: Thomas, I read a long time ago about someone who wrote, as well as edited and reformatted, documentation in DOS's EDLIN, where each line ends with a carriage return, and almost all operations require special trigger keys to perform them! It's only one or two steps above cuneiform.<G>)

If you need to create online Help systems, FM's the clear choice for the simplest path through well-proven tools. XML from ID could be used to work with help tools, though it's not a a common path yet.

HTH

Regards,

Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[_thomas_bro_]

Peter

Quite right you are. But I'm usually, in threads like, this comparing the raw versions of products.

Once you add the capabilities that plug-ins offer you can do amazing things with both products.

FWIW, I still find FM a more sturdy, reliable, faster and less troublesome product. AND I use both on all levels. I just use them for what they are good for.

On XML it is correct that the XML representation of an InDesign document can create ID documents with content and functionality, that ID does not have yet (Conditional text, xrefs, users access and restriction to individual text/image frames etc.) But that is another story :-)

keep smiling
thomas

[peter_minneapolis]

Hi, Thomas:

I only mentioned the x-ref plug-in for ID because the Adobe product comparison mentioned FM plug-ins.

Regards,

Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[_thomas_bro_]

Peter,

I am aware that Adobe does this from time to time. I attended a seminar in which more or less all cool ID plug-ins were at display. Without the audience knew about it.

They were led to believe ID could this by default.

The problem arose when someone asked (guess who :-)

And the total cost of ID + plug-ins exceeded 4.000 dollars !!!!!!

Fair should be fair (read this Adobe). Remember to compare apples with apples ...

keep smiling
thomas

[_Jonno_]

A lot comes down to how complex your workflow is. We tried going FrameMaker but too many of our technical authors wouldn't have it - Word was what they "knew" and they were going to stick with it, come hell or highwater - or even corrupted documents and styling controls that didn't work.

We don't do much in the way of conditional text, documenent reformatting or all the other wonderful whizzy things that Frame can do, so now that InDesign has a structured numbering tool (remarkably similar to the one in Frame) I might have a go at trying to persaude the powers that be to give it a try.

ANYTHING'S gotta be better tha Word!

[MichaelKazlow]

> ANYTHING'S gotta be better tha Word!

As much as I hate Word, I disagree. Word is the lingua franca of the
word processing world. For most people it gets the job done. Neither
notepad nor wordpad can replace Word. I'd love to use Open Office but it
is too darn clunky and does not handle graphics nor mathematics well. I
use Frame for almost everything. I use Nisus Writer Pro on the Mac, when
I need simple documents. But for more complicated documents that go back
and forth between users, it is Word that must be used.

Mike

[_Bill_Dauphin_]

Mike:

> > ANYTHING'S gotta be better tha Word!
>
> As much as I hate Word, I disagree.

Oddly, I *like* Word, but I agree with Jonno's comment.

> Word is the lingua franca of the word processing world.

Yup... but we're not really talking about word-processing here; we're talking about publishing, which is a higher-level professional function. People instinctively understand this with pictures: They might use Office or other consumer/productivity apps to create rough-draft pictures, but once they turn them over to illustrators or CAD operators (as appropriate), they generally understand that those folks are going to use professional tools. Because everyone feels "ownership" of words, we tend not to relinquish them to the pros in quite the same way. I find the CAD drawing analogy quite useful in explaining to the engineers whose work I publish why "just give me the Word version and I'll make my own changes" isn't the way we do business.

That said, just as I don't want to be forced to use Word for my work, I'd never ask an untrained (from a publishing POV) engineer or program manager to grapple with Frame. The distinction between
i content creation
and
i editing/publishing
that's driven by a Word/FrameMaker/PDF workflow is, IMHO, a
i Feature, Not a Bug![tm]

[FieryPantone]

> we're not really talking about word-processing here; we're talking about publishing, which is a higher-level professional function

Well-expressed distinction! I've managed to train/persuade my departments so that they're happy drafting and delivering new content in Word, and accept that once the content reaches a certain stage in the flow it's no longer in their hands for direct modification. In fact, they're happy enough with that general approach to be expressing interest in xml -> structured Frame* once we've found an xml editor they (and, of course, IT) are happy with.

N

* round-tripping not yet envisaged ;-}