[HELP] No Good Way to Convert Complex FM Files (Multicolumn, Equations, Tables, Figures) to Word

[ashrae-editor]

Problem: Need a relatively convenient way to convert long, complex technical documents in Framemaker (2019)—multicolumn format with large numbers of equations, tables, and figures—to MS Word without having to spend hours manually postprocessing to make it readable/usable.

XML/Structured Frame isn't an option for various technical/process reasons I won't go into. (Trust me, I would love to be able to do this.)

Two Not-Really-Solutions I've Considered: Exporting from PDF results in a near-perfect copy in Word built entirely on sand (column breaks, section breaks, etc. to preserve appearance) that collapses as soon as you begin to add/remove/modify text or objects.

Copying and pasting directly from Framemaker is somewhat better, but equations (using the Equation Builder) and figures are stripped from the output and requires serious postproduction, which for very complex documents is still prohibitively labor/time intensive.

I've been banging my head against this wall for over a decade and have reached a point where I can no longer optimize other parts of my workflow to compensate.

If there are no built-in ways to convert complex FM files to Word with reasonably high fidelity, does anyone in a similar situation know of third-party apps or plugins that perform a similar function? I've looked but found nothing.

Thank everyone who took the time to read and consider my problem! This forum is a treasure.

Best,

JMW

[Jeff_Coatsworth]

I think the FM > PDF > Word solution is the best you're going to find, but why do you need to produce Word output in the first place? (just curious - you'd think you'd go "all-Word" or "all-FM" in most scenarios I can think of)

[ashrae-editor]

Thanks, Jeff.

Basically, I'm trying to round trip a document without a framework for it. I have no control over the initial documents; the only input I'm allowed is they be submitted as Word files. These are laid out in Framemaker, edited, and published. Then they're resubmitted back to the originating committees as the basis for future editions (revision cycles are 3, 5, and 10 year, which presents other difficulties).

This has always presented a bottleneck for production, but it's something we've papered over by finely tuning every other part of the process within our control. As the volume of publications has increased, this has become unsustainable.

[Stefan-Gentz]

Okay, our messages crossed. You answered parts of my other reply 🙂

There is a pretty good solution available where Word DOCX authors and FrameMaker DITA authors can collaborate seamlessly together. That is, if you move to DITA, that problem is solved. You work in DITA, the others can work in Word – and you just seamlessly exchange the documents.

This is a solution that one of our partners offers. Let me know if this is interesting for you.

[ashrae-editor]

Sent you a private message!

[Barb Binder]

Can we assume you have already ruled out File > Save As > Microsoft RTF in FrameMaker?

I'm not aware of any third party apps for this—like Jeff, I'd go with Fm to PDF to Word, but note that there are 3 variations. Try all three:

Once most organizations make the decision to move from Word to Fm, they don't go back. The main reason I hear for wanting to export to Word is because companies want their engineers to be able to edit the documents, but the engineers don't have FrameMaker licenses, or don't want to learn it.

In that scenario,  I would recommend a FrameMaker to PDF commenting workflow. Show them how to enter edits using the Acrobat annotation tools and then import the edits back into the FrameMaker document.

~Barb

[ashrae-editor]

Thanks, Barb.

Yes, I've tried saving to RTF from Framemaker, but the conversion hangs indefinitely and eventually I have to kill the process (these files are long and object-dense). I'm currently limited to printing to PDF (which uses, I believe, a default PS printer?), as Save-to-PDF and Publish-to-PDF (which use a native PS printer?) result in garbled output for some reason (a completely unrelated headache I immediately had to hack around when we upgraded, as I haven't had time to phone Adobe Support). Using the Print-to-PDF file, I've tried exporting to doc, docx, and rtf. In all cases, the output in Word is a picture perfect mirror of the source PDF, however the hundreds of breaks and under-the-hood chicanery used to preserve the appearance of the document also make it impossible to modify/edit without the whole thing quickly falling apart.

I did consider the commenting workflow, but the authoring committees number in the dozens, turnover is high and constant, and I have little leverage to make authors learn and use the available tools.

(I hate that I sound like I'm just making excuses to your suggestions. I very much appreciate the reply!)

[Barb Binder]

Hi @ashrae-editor:

Here's a little nugget to file away—the PDF export engine was greatly improved over the old Print/Distiller workflow. I would suggest figuring out what the issue is with the Save-to-PDF/Publish-to-PDF. And once you have it figured out, be sure to enable Create Tagged PDF. This tags the file for accessibility but also helps with export back to Word. I don't know if it will fix the under-the-hood chicanery, but it is certainly worth a try.

The commenting workflow isn't difficult, but it is also not intuitive. I set up a 30-minute online session with new editors to review the process, and then ask them to edit a practice file, and have them watch me import it so that they have a clear understanding of the workflow. It really doesn't take that long. 

Just some things to think about! 🙂

~Barb

[ashrae-editor]

Thank you, Barb! I'll make investigating the Save-to-PDF issue a priority and follow up if it changes anything.

[Stefan-Gentz]

Have you tried saving a document as "Microsoft RTF 1.9"?

That asked: Why do you want to save a FrameMaker document as a Word document?

And: Do you also need to go the other way (FM → DOCX → FM)?

[Jeff_Coatsworth]

I would have just stuck to FM being the source and PDFs for review being the output. Then all you need to do is incorporate comments/changes made on the review PDFs back into FM for the next publication cycle. Pretty sure that's the "usual" way it's done...