Mac OS X Version

[tlmurray23]

Seems like it's a broad enough request that it could stand a thread of its own.

I think this weekend I *might* break down and put Leopard on my PowerBook, which means no Classic, and I'd have to use Frame for Windows in one of the virtualization products. Uck.

[MichaelKazlow]

Parallel 4 has the ability to use two cores rather than just one. I must
admit that I think Parallels 4 is a step backwards. If the usual
upgrades don't improve performance I see fusion in my future.

BTW, it is not FrameMaker that is using the Mac shortcuts it is
Parallels making the conversion. You can add your own shortcuts to the
ones in Parallels.

Mike

[Creamer Training]

In my experience, most of the companies that are prone to use FrameMaker often have strict IT departments that want to standardize on one platform--Windows.

Even though Macs have about 50% or more of the graphics world, the need or want of FrameMaker on that platform is small. For those creating long documentation, InDesign CS4 is getting close to Frame's capabilities, including cross references and conditional text. It still is missing some useful Frame features, however.

Don't forget that you don't need Parallels to run Windows software--you can use Boot Camp that comes with Leopard. The only problem is you have to reboot to use it. I use Parallels 4 to access my Boot Camp partition (without rebooting) and have not experienced major slow-downs compared to version 3. The best thing I like about version 4 is that it breaks the 2 GB RAM limit.

[_Orisinio_Ribaldi_]

You can also run Windows on Intel Macs with the free Virtual Box virtualization software from Sun Micro. I run OpenSolaris, Solaris, and Linux under Mac OS X 10.5.5 on a MacBook Pro. Don't run Windows because I have a separate XP laptop I can use when I must.

Adobe now seems dedicated to not porting FM to Mac OS X for religious reasons. They've crammed FM into a tech communications box, assuming that only large Windows- or Sun-centric organizations want to use it -- indeed, that they have to use it. The result will be the slow constriction and eventual demise of FM.

Adobe, I beg you -- if you don't want to port to Mac OS X or Linux, then open-source FM and let someone else do it! The big corporations will still buy your version to obtain support.

Now, to go about converting all of those Frame documents I have into OpenOffice .... Sigh.

[tlmurray23]

Orisino: As much as I can't stand government getting in the way of business, well ... there should be a law that you put your code out to open source in situations like these.

[_newmanic_]

Just tried the new version of Frame 9 for a week at a contract job. What an annoying interface. When I watched the Adobe "online tutorial" a month ago, the Adobe spokesman went on and on about how cool the new interface is, how it solves all the problems the Windows-centric geeks were complaining about. Well, the Apple version of the interface allowed many of those windows to display under (not always remain on top and get in the way of your working document). To me, the interface "enhancements" get in the way and do things automatically "for" me like I hate. They should have spent a fraction of the effort they did enhancing the interface to work like all the other new apps to instead port the app to Mac OS X. Even the graphic designer I was working with said she didn't like the new interface for the InDesign upgrade. People don't like change. (Does anybody know where to find anything on the new version of (f)Word?) But drastic change on the interface and nothing substantive in the functionality (like a Mac version, duh!) is not going to win much applause here.

[Doc_Raman]

The forums were finally updated, maybe the OSX version is next

I love my fantasy world.

Pages continues to improve and can now embed math equations. That has finally become my main tool, although I'd buy FM for OSX in a millisecond if it was released.

[fogharty]

I'm late to the party, but I would love FM for OSX.

We are now switching from a complicated process where we takes MS Word files and use FM to convert them to xml, then run PERL scripts on the xml to create html files, and also create fm files so we basically have a single-source web/print process.

I use fm to layout the print, and it just works great! No other program that I know of will allow you to create a book, then gather separate files into the book and be able to paginate all of them at once, create indexes and table of contents, markers for automatic section naming, etc. If there is one for the Mac OS, please let me know.

I think FM, with a few tweaks and better graphic placement, could kick InDesign's ass. And InDesign is basically a tarted-up version of PageMaker, lest we forget.

But we are leaving FM 7.0 behind, and I really can't see switching to Windows for the dubious benefit of just running FM.

Again, if anyone knows a decent program for single source publishing that will run on Mac/Windows, please let me know.

Adobe, you really don't know what you have with FrameMaker. It could give Quark a run for its money if marketed the right way.

[MichaelKazlow]

I'm with you where a Mac OS X native version of Frame is concerned. However, If you really like Frame, then running Windows via Parallels or Fusion to run Frame is worth it. Just to run Frame. That is what I do. The added benefit of the TCS with Robohelp, Captivate, Acrobat Pro Extended, and Photoshop Extended really make running Windows on a Mac worthwhile. At least until Adobe sees the light...

[Guest]

At least for me, there is no added value in the TCS. Photoshop Extended and Acrobat Pro are already in the CS for Mac; and I don't need RoboHelp or Captivate, since interactive help and manuals can be done with much more modern (and inexpensive) tools on the Mac. Frankly, I would only need FrameMaker for Mac, and would not see any problem if the TCS is not ported.

Paolo

[Paolo T]

A few days ago I've done the switch from FM6 Mac to FM9 Win. Not happy to give money to Adobe again, but after a long research, I could not find any alternative to Frame. Since then, I'm trying to solve a color matching problem, because all my old documents now print to PDF with wrong colors.

It's funny enough to read a hint from Adobe themselves to this problem. Since it seems that the problem resides in the way Windows does (not) manage CMYK color, they suggest to edit in Windows, and then print with the Mac (or Unix) version. Ah, ah.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/324/324220.html

Paolo

[tlmurray23]

I have a write-up about color in Mac FrameMaker on my web site. Go to www.techknowledgecorp.com/help, and look along the left column for "working with color". I hope that it helps.

[Paolo T]

After more than one month using FrameMaker 9 under Windows XP, I'm more and more convinced this is the wrong platform on which to use this otherwise excellent program.

FrameMaker 9 greatly improves on the old versions. The new user interface is well conceived and can actually save time. Hierarchical books (sort of Nisus or Mellel's outliner, or Scrivener's Binder) are something I've desired for a long time. And there are several refinements here and there that makes it, again, the well-conceived tech writing tool it has always been.

However, some old problems are still there. For example, assigning the "As is" attribute to all parameters in a format search dialog box can only be done with an arcane key combination (Shift-F8); there is still no way to add a colored background to a paragraph, or to put an image under it; file backups are saved in the same directory as the original file, generating confusion; and it seems that typographic quotes are only supported in the English format (at least, I cannot find a way to set them in the German format, nor in the Italian academic «square» format).

But the worse problems are due to running on the Windows platform, not the program itself.

- Inserting diacritical marks is a hassle. On the Mac, you use a combination of Option, or Option-Shift plus a character. In Windows, you only have the Alt Gr key for alternative characters, and there are only a few of them given as standard. I had to modify the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration file to add just some of the basic ones. Someone suggested me to use the wonderful Alt+ASCII numeric code combination...

- Inserting Unicode characters is done through a floating window that tries to simulate the Character Set window on the Mac. Only, it seems to have been programmed on a DOS system, and looks (and acts) as an alien entity in Windows.

- Supplied Unicode characters are way less than those coming as standard on the Mac. Unsophisticated works will probably not need them - I just happen to need them rather often, for various kinds of technical symbols.

- PDF generation has several problems with color matching and line thickness. Never had them on the Mac. ("Take the right tool for your job", they used to say.)

- Standard fonts are bad clones of the most renowned works from classic foundries, like Arial for Helvetica and Times New Roman for Times. The result is a printout looking less pleasant, with slightly uneven character spacing both on paper and onscreen.

- Implemented keyboard shortcuts are just a few. Someone suggested me to use the Esc sequence even for repetitive tasks. Again, I edited the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration to have some more comfort. Among the oddities was the lack of a command to continuously jump down from paragraph to paragraph (Opt-Down in most Mac apps, or Cmd-Down in FrameMaker Mac). You could select paragraphs while scrolling down, but not just jump. Great design.

- Dialog boxes usually open in the upper left corner of the screen. Palettes are on the opposite side. I wonder what was wrong with the Mac centering dialog boxes on the screen.

- I had some crashes (on the Mac, it happened less than ten times in thirteen years). And, I'm trying to understand if the Autosave option does work or not (at least, it is doing nothing now).

In my view, FrameMaker and Windows are the wrong pair matching. With Macs now so commonly seen in offices and labs, I wonder why FrameMaker is not given back to the natural home for a publishing program - the Mac.

Paolo

[peter_minneapolis]

Paolo Tramannoni wrote:

After more than one month using FrameMaker 9 under Windows XP, I'm more and more convinced this is the wrong platform on which to use this otherwise excellent program.

FrameMaker 9 greatly improves on the old versions. The new user interface is well conceived and can actually save time. Hierarchical books (sort of Nisus or Mellel's outliner, or Scrivener's Binder) are something I've desired for a long time. And there are several refinements here and there that makes it, again, the well-conceived tech writing tool it has always been.

However, some old problems are still there. For example, assigning the "As is" attribute to all parameters in a format search dialog box can only be done with an arcane key combination (Shift-F8); there is still no way to add a colored background to a paragraph, or to put an image under it; file backups are saved in the same directory as the original file, generating confusion; and it seems that typographic quotes are only supported in the English format (at least, I cannot find a way to set them in the German format, nor in the Italian academic «square» format).

But the worse problems are due to running on the Windows platform, not the program itself.

- Inserting diacritical marks is a hassle. On the Mac, you use a combination of Option, or Option-Shift plus a character. In Windows, you only have the Alt Gr key for alternative characters, and there are only a few of them given as standard. I had to modify the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration file to add just some of the basic ones. Someone suggested me to use the wonderful Alt+ASCII numeric code combination...

- Inserting Unicode characters is done through a floating window that tries to simulate the Character Set window on the Mac. Only, it seems to have been programmed on a DOS system, and looks (and acts) as an alien entity in Windows.

- Supplied Unicode characters are way less than those coming as standard on the Mac. Unsophisticated works will probably not need them - I just happen to need them rather often, for various kinds of technical symbols.

- PDF generation has several problems with color matching and line thickness. Never had them on the Mac. ("Take the right tool for your job", they used to say.)

- Standard fonts are bad clones of the most renowned works from classic foundries, like Arial for Helvetica and Times New Roman for Times. The result is a printout looking less pleasant, with slightly uneven character spacing both on paper and onscreen.

- Implemented keyboard shortcuts are just a few. Someone suggested me to use the Esc sequence even for repetitive tasks. Again, I edited the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration to have some more comfort. Among the oddities was the lack of a command to continuously jump down from paragraph to paragraph (Opt-Down in most Mac apps, or Cmd-Down in FrameMaker Mac). You could select paragraphs while scrolling down, but not just jump. Great design.

- Dialog boxes usually open in the upper left corner of the screen. Palettes are on the opposite side. I wonder what was wrong with the Mac centering dialog boxes on the screen.

- I had some crashes (on the Mac, it happened less than ten times in thirteen years). And, I'm trying to understand if the Autosave option does work or not (at least, it is doing nothing now).

In my view, FrameMaker and Windows are the wrong pair matching. With Macs now so commonly seen in offices and labs, I wonder why FrameMaker is not given back to the natural home for a publishing program - the Mac.

Paolo

Hi, Paolo:

If these are your key points of irritation, you might be interested in InDesign CS4. Since my earlier posting, CS4 was released. It's got cross-references, and much-improved numbered-list abilities. You can customize keystroke shortcuts easily. It's fully Unicode capable. Etc.

If you're not doing DITA, working in structured FM, or generating help systems, InDesign might work for you. However, it's not suited to any kind of efficient round-trip workflow from FrameMaker -> InDesign or InDesign -> FrameMaker; this could be the deal breaker.

Whatever the expected sales revenue that might come from reviving FrameMaker on Mac, the development cost would kill any profit.

I'm working on a book for FrameMaker users moving to InDesign, to help smooth the journey. Stay tuned.

Regards,

Peter
_______________________
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[tlmurray23]

peter@knowhowpro.com wrote:

Whatever the expected sales revenue that might come from reviving FrameMaker on Mac, the development cost would kill any profit.

I disagree. With any application, much of the cost goes into simply figuring out how it's going to work and the underlying algorithms of how to accomplish it; all that has already been done.  Further, Frame retails for $1000.  If only 1000 licenses were sold through the Adobe store, there's the first million in revenue. It would take some convincing that with all the foundation of Fame that's already there it would take a million to develop it.

[Paolo T]

Peter, thank you for your answer. I lived in InDesign CS4 for the full 30 days of the demo, and found it not really suitable for my needs. While I liked features like layers and the many import/export filters, it was slow even when just typing, the user interface seems to privilege graphic elements more than text elements, and gave me a general improssion of limited "free flowing". The documents and generated PDF files are huge. I should probably write down a comparison sheet to show my findings during those days.

But I admit that working with (the very good) FrameMaker under (the very bad) Windows is such a hassle, that I might reconsinder my situation and balance between bad and bad.

Contraty to you, and seconding Tim's thinking, I don't think porting would cost so much. Working in the software development industry, I see software as sophisticated as FrameMaker ported by a single developer in three or four months. They already even have a lot of code from CS4 that can be reused for the user interface. My guess is that this move is more politic that other: they are moving all advanced users to a single app, slowly demising this strange thing that is FrameMaker.

I await for your book. It might convince me.

Paolo

[peter_minneapolis]

Paolo Tramannoni wrote:

Peter, thank you for your answer. I lived in InDesign CS4 for the full 30 days of the demo, and found it not really suitable for my needs. While I liked features like layers and the many import/export filters, it was slow even when just typing, the user interface seems to privilege graphic elements more than text elements, and gave me a general improssion of limited "free flowing". The documents and generated PDF files are huge. I should probably write down a comparison sheet to show my findings during those days.

But I admit that working with (the very good) FrameMaker under (the very bad) Windows is such a hassle, that I might reconsinder my situation and balance between bad and bad.

Contraty to you, and seconding Tim's thinking, I don't think porting would cost so much. Working in the software development industry, I see software as sophisticated as FrameMaker ported by a single developer in three or four months. They already even have a lot of code from CS4 that can be reused for the user interface. My guess is that this move is more politic that other: they are moving all advanced users to a single app, slowly demising this strange thing that is FrameMaker.

I await for your book. It might convince me.

Paolo

Hi, Paolo:

Long ago, there was a public beta of FrameMaker for linux that wasn't developed into a released product. I can't remember if it was while Frame Technology, the originator of FrameMaker, owned FrameMaker, or if it was after Adobe purchased FrameMaker. FrameMaker originated on unix, so the thinking was that it shouldn't be too difficult or expensive to develop a linux version. I don't know exactly why the linux version was discontinued - it may have been with linux users at that time comprising too small a market to be economically worthwhile, and no certainty how soon or how fast the market would grow, vs. the cost of developing and supporting the ported version. It may have been due to lack of interest or acceptance by the linux users.

FrameMaker began as a unix-based product, initially running on SunOS; eventually it was ported to many different versions for specific unix computer systems. In those days, the unix computer manufacturer paid for the port.

In the mid-90's, Adobe introduced unix versions of Illustrator and Photoshop. It's not clear why they were discontinued - shrinking unix market, difficulty of development, etc.

When Mac OS X was introduced, there was much expectation in the user community that it would be easy to port FrameMaker to OS X, but it wasn't. As FrameMaker's code base evolved, it became difficult to develop new versions on the already-supported operating systems. There's no underlying similarity between FrameMaker code and the code of CS products.

It's easy to think that all Adobe products may be converging on a product line that is composed mostly of individualized plug-ins that run on a common small core "engine." However, the great effort of harmonizing the CS products indicates that it's not simple to accomplish.

FrameMaker is a member of Adobe's Technical Communications Suite (TCS) which is a tool set specifically focused on technical writers, not print designers, nor Web designers. TCS family products Photoshop and Acrobat, are available for OS X, and a Captivate beta release is coming (search Google for captivate mac os x.) RoboHelp, AFAIK, is not planned for OS X. Probably FrameMaker will not move to OS X until and unless the complete TCS is developed for OS X (my guess.)

HTH

Regards,

Peter
_______________________
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[Paolo T]

Hi Peter,

The difference between technical publication, print publication, and web publication, as well as XML/HTML help systems, is very subtle nowadays. For example, I create manuals that will be partly printed, and as a whole released as PDF files online (and supplied in CDs with the product). Also, my FrameMaker manuals are exported to XML/HTML, and edited to become embedded help systems and online tutorials. So, at least in my case (and that of my colleagues) there aren't two separate worlds when target media are concerned.

The difference, in our case, is between a graphic-intensive publication type (as in advertising) and text-intensive one (as in manuals). As of now, it seems to me that InDesign is still specialized in the first type of publications, while FrameMaker has still a good advantage (not based on features but on workflow) when coming to the second type.

As for waiting for the full TCS to be completed, I would say I cannot see myself using Captivate or RoboHelp in any case. I already use other tools, under Mac, to make interactive tutorials/help systems. I like them. They cost little, and are perfectly integrated in the Apple guidelines. My perfect technical communication suite is made up of FrameMaker, Illustrator (FreeHand...), Photoshop, Acorn, Little Snapper, Picturesque, TextWrangler, Coda, KeyNote, Final Cut. So, the missing link is still - and only - FrameMaker.

Paolo

[peter_minneapolis]

Paolo Tramannoni wrote:

Hi Peter,

The difference between technical publication, print publication, and web publication, as well as XML/HTML help systems, is very subtle nowadays. For example, I create manuals that will be partly printed, and as a whole released as PDF files online (and supplied in CDs with the product). Also, my FrameMaker manuals are exported to XML/HTML, and edited to become embedded help systems and online tutorials. So, at least in my case (and that of my colleagues) there aren't two separate worlds when target media are concerned.

The difference, in our case, is between a graphic-intensive publication type (as in advertising) and text-intensive one (as in manuals). As of now, it seems to me that InDesign is still specialized in the first type of publications, while FrameMaker has still a good advantage (not based on features but on workflow) when coming to the second type.

As for waiting for the full TCS to be completed, I would say I cannot see myself using Captivate or RoboHelp in any case. I already use other tools, under Mac, to make interactive tutorials/help systems. I like them. They cost little, and are perfectly integrated in the Apple guidelines. My perfect technical communication suite is made up of FrameMaker, Illustrator (FreeHand...), Photoshop, Acorn, Little Snapper, Picturesque, TextWrangler, Coda, KeyNote, Final Cut. So, the missing link is still - and only - FrameMaker.

Paolo

Hi, Paolo:

In my mention of ID CS4 improvements, I forgot to mention the Smart Text Flow feature that adds pages when you over-fill the current page. It's a tad fussy to set up, but it has greater flexibility that FM's Autoflow; it can add pages to the end of the document, like FrameMaker, or to the end of the current story (like FM's connected text frames), or to the end of the current section (a defined segment of the current document, something like sections in MS Word).

Regarding typing speed:

The more RAM on your system, the better the speed, as you'd expect. The sluggishness you experience comes from InDesign's significant different in managing hyphenation, justification, word- and letter-spacing; InDesign by default uses a paragraph composer, vs. most other products use of a line-by-line composer. Composing a complete paragraph takes more effort, but the text adjustments are distributed throughout the whole paragraph, rather than adjusting each line in a paragraph independently of each other. You can even fine-tune the adjustment settings, or, if you prefer, you can substitute the line-by-line composer overall, in specified paragraphs, or include your choice as a paragraph style attribute.

Also, for fast typing, there's a plain text story editor that you can open in its own window (InDesign has multiple windows, unlike FrameMaker.)

For multi-media, you can set up lots of for export to Flash documents while still in InDesign; you can export as SWF for Web, or as FLV, for further work in Flash.

You can import and export XML, though, for help systems, you'd need to develop your own ways to convert and create the final help deliverable. Probably, over time, as more folks migrate, someone will develop and market tools for this need.

Also, InDesign CS4's export for DreamWeaver can be used for other Web-creation tools.

HTH

Regards,

Peter
_______________________
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[Paolo T]

Hi Peter,

Your remarks about paragraph formatting should suggest the reason why InDesign and FrameMaker will never be interchangeable products: excessive care to typographic details are not needed in FrameMaker, while they are essential in InDesign (being it part of a composite graphic tool called the "Creative Suite").

Since FrameMaker's output is already of commendably good quality, it should continue to be focused on ease of text treatment, together with technical illustrations. Working on text in a separate window defeats the meaning itself of using FrameMaker, a technical writing tool that's different from, say, LaTeX, for how easy it makes working at the same time on structured text and diagrams.

On a personal note, I would say that exporting to Flash is not the main core of my job. What I write is not graphic, nor animation intensive. This might be different for other technical writers, but as of now I don't see many animated technical manuals around. Isn't making a video much easier? (Just asking). My manuals are very often the starting base for the script of industrial videos and tutorials.

As for Help systems, I work both on embedded systems and standard computer's online help. Both in the first and the second case, a very simple HTML syntax is required; so, converting is just a matter of "cleaning out" the output from FrameMaker, more than looking for a sophisticated conversion tool. I don't use DreamWeaver for my manuals/help systems, since these are not full-featured web sites, but just online manuals: easy and light to read, with a minimal amount of (meaningful) graphics.

Paolo

[peter_minneapolis]

Paolo Tramannoni wrote:

Hi Peter,

Your remarks about paragraph formatting should suggest the reason why InDesign and FrameMaker will never be interchangeable products: excessive care to typographic details are not needed in FrameMaker, while they are essential in InDesign (being it part of a composite graphic tool called the "Creative Suite").

Agreed, however, it's much less necessary to spend time with typographic manipulation in InDesign, because its paragraph and character styles incorporate all the intelligence in the paragraph-level composer for fine control, and in the single-line composer for control more on the level of FrameMaker.

In addition, InDesign's nested character style feature - intelligent algorithmic application of defined character styles within paragraphs, plus its GREP paragraph formatting feature - formatting by matching patterns, plus its paragraph line formatting feature - specifying the character style that is applied to a given line in a paragraph, which adjusts as lines flow forward or backward, plus the ability to repeat one or more of these styling features within a paragraph style - all relieve the author of manual formatting work, once the styles are defined. There's even a feature that applies the next paragraph style defined in a paragraph that does this across selections of paragraphs; after creating and styling text, if you redefine say, the H1 style, to be followed by an Intro paragraph style, instead of a Body1 style, in FrameMaker, this takes effect only when starting new paragraphs with Return/Enter. For existing paragraphs, you'd have to find each existing H1, move down and apply Intro manually, or write a script or macro. In InDesign, you'd select ranges of text that contain H1s and apply the feature that applies the defined next paragraph style to all paragraphs in the range; this means you can redefine more than one paragraph style and apply this feature to a selected range, and all the redefinitions are applies. The usual requirement of authors applying appropriate styles rigorously remains.

Since FrameMaker's output is already of commendably good quality, it should continue to be focused on ease of text treatment, together with technical illustrations. Working on text in a separate window defeats the meaning itself of using FrameMaker, a technical writing tool that's different from, say, LaTeX, for how easy it makes working at the same time on structured text and diagrams.

Apologies if I wasn't clear. The Story Editor is less and less necessary for fast typing, with a combination of any or all of: sufficient RAM, disk speed, free disk capacity, single-line composition, and "vanilla" paragraph styles (few or no nested character-, line-, and/or GREP-style options. Also, InDesign provides multiple windows, so the author can view and/or edit/type new material, either in the the story editor window, the document-view window, or switch between them. This is somewhat similar to Structured FrameMaker's simultaneous use of structure and document windows, except that in FrameMaker, you need to create the foundations for structured operation, while in InDesign, there's no special preparation; just open the window (or multiple windows for editing, copying, or moving content in different parts of the same document.)

On a personal note, I would say that exporting to Flash is not the main core of my job. What I write is not graphic, nor animation intensive. This might be different for other technical writers, but as of now I don't see many animated technical manuals around. Isn't making a video much easier? (Just asking). My manuals are very often the starting base for the script of industrial videos and tutorials.

I only mentioned Flash because you mentioned going beyond print into interactive products.

As for Help systems, I work both on embedded systems and standard computer's online help. Both in the first and the second case, a very simple HTML syntax is required; so, converting is just a matter of "cleaning out" the output from FrameMaker, more than looking for a sophisticated conversion tool. I don't use DreamWeaver for my manuals/help systems, since these are not full-featured web sites, but just online manuals: easy and light to read, with a minimal amount of (meaningful) graphics.

Paolo

I haven't used the XML or DreamWeaver output; you may find they are useful for your needs. It's worth a look.

HTH

Regards,

Peter
_______________________
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

[Paolo T]

Dear Peter,

it's much less necessary to spend time with typographic manipulation in InDesign

I would like to ask you to elaborate on this, since I might ignore some of the more advanced features of InDesign.

InDesign's nested character style feature

While I think this is a great features for catalogues, where you don't need to apply a different paragraph style for the heading and the body text to be treated as a single unity (a little like the DD and DT tags in HTML), I also find that FrameMaker's Run-in paragraph styles are much more useful in technical manuals, where you might want to include them in the TOC. Also, in technical (or academic) documentes you might have headings running for more than a single sentence, and this would defeat InDesign's nested styles scope.

There's even a feature that applies the next paragraph style defined in a paragraph ... this means you can redefine more than one paragraph style and apply this feature to a selected range

Nice, but I guess of very limited use. If you must add an Intro paragraph, just add it in that style; if you must change its appearance, edit the style. Instead of editing two styles in a single item, you edit two items with a single style each.

The Story Editor is less and less necessary for fast typing, with a combination of any or all of

Ah, OK. I had a different impression while trying it on my MacBook Pro, but things might change with the next generation of Macs.

InDesign provides multiple windows

Nice - but in FrameMaker you just type directly in page with no odd scrolling, or speed problems (assuming this latter is true in your computer).

I only mentioned Flash because you mentioned going beyond print into interactive products.

This is an important difference, though. Adobe's marketing pushes strong on the Flash export - but not everybody needs it. Not that it is a bad thing - only, it might not be the most important thing.

I haven't used the XML or DreamWeaver output; you may find they are useful for your needs. It's worth a look.

XML output is very useful to me. But I can't understand why using DreamWeaver's output, if you shouldn't create a web site from your document (plus, I prefer to use Coda). Again, here is the different target: something made in a graphic department (with InDesign) will be printed as a brochure, and then go online preserving the same graphic elements and a similar layout; something coming from the technical writers (working in FrameMaker) will hardly become a brochure or a colorful web site.

Paolo

[peter_minneapolis]

Hi, Paolo:

NOTE: My replies are inserted in italic, because it's becoming awkward to break up the long quote area.

Paolo Tramannoni wrote:

Dear Peter,

it's much less necessary to spend time with typographic manipulation in InDesign

I would like to ask you to elaborate on this, since I might ignore some of the more advanced features of InDesign.

InDesign recognizes all the typographic features of OpenType, and can define them in paragraph and character styles. Just as in FrameMaker, tagging text (or text frames, or objects, or table cells) with a defined style gives consistency, no matter how fussy the defined style is. For example, FrameMaker's paragraph and character style designers (or direct formatting menu choices) can't set baseline offset, though it's possible to customize this attribute in the definition in a MIF file. However, MIF can't remember the baseline offset if the format is changed with Update All. ID can tune hyphenation, widows, and orphans more finely. ID can specify regular, lining, or oldstyle numerals, and so on. Some of the features that aren't available in FM might be useful or even preferable, if they were available. The point here is that, while setting up styles to embody the available nuances may take more time and effort, it's as convenient to apply these styles as those that don't take advantage of these features.

OTOH, template designers are free to stay away from anything not also available in FrameMaker formats.

InDesign's nested character style feature

While I think this is a great features for catalogues, where you don't need to apply a different paragraph style for the heading and the body text to be treated as a single unity (a little like the DD and DT tags in HTML), I also find that FrameMaker's Run-in paragraph styles are much more useful in technical manuals, where you might want to include them in the TOC. Also, in technical (or academic) documentes you might have headings running for more than a single sentence, and this would defeat InDesign's nested styles scope.

You're correct! FM's run-in feature is perfect for generated-list extraction (like TOC,) and missing from ID, despite frequent requests on the public wish list, and by beta testers. Maybe some day. There are workarounds; however, yes, not as convenient. I'm not sure if I was confusing about nested styles - they can be programmed across sentences in paragraphs; I don't see a problem in doing what run-in headings do in this case, except for TOC extraction. I can imagine other instances where the ability to run a paragraph into a following paragraph on the same line could be useful.

There's even a feature that applies the next paragraph style defined in a paragraph ... this means you can redefine more than one paragraph style and apply this feature to a selected range

Nice, but I guess of very limited use. If you must add an Intro paragraph, just add it in that style; if you must change its appearance, edit the style. Instead of editing two styles in a single item, you edit two items with a single style each.

Again,  perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. If you need to physically insert a paragraph, you insert it in ID as in FM. However, if there's a range of text in which you want to retag intro1 paragraphs that follow H1 paragraphs to intro2 paragraphs, one method would be to use Find intro1 and Replace with intro2, as in FrameMaker; if you want to change the behavior of H1 so that Enter/Return at the end of H1 will always create intro2, and also change existing intro1 paragraphs that follow H1 to intro2, first redefine H1's Next Paragraph Style to intro2, then select the range and perform Apply Next Style.

The Story Editor is less and less necessary for fast typing, with a combination of any or all of

Ah, OK. I had a different impression while trying it on my MacBook Pro, but things might change with the next generation of Macs.

My February 2008 MacBook Pro 2.5MHz Core2 Duo can take up to 6GB RAM with Other World Computing's kit. I have only 4GB. Unibody's can take 8GB. You may only need a RAM boost, not a new machine.

InDesign provides multiple windows

Nice - but in FrameMaker you just type directly in page with no odd scrolling, or speed problems (assuming this latter is true in your computer).

Nothing odd about the scrolling when new pages are created according to your settings in Preferences.

I only mentioned Flash because you mentioned going beyond print into interactive products.

This is an important difference, though. Adobe's marketing pushes strong on the Flash export - but not everybody needs it. Not that it is a bad thing - only, it might not be the most important thing.

For those who will use Flash output, much can be done in ID before export.

I haven't used the XML or DreamWeaver output; you may find they are useful for your needs. It's worth a look.

XML output is very useful to me. But I can't understand why using DreamWeaver's output, if you shouldn't create a web site from your document (plus, I prefer to use Coda). Again, here is the different target: something made in a graphic department (with InDesign) will be printed as a brochure, and then go online preserving the same graphic elements and a similar layout; something coming from the technical writers (working in FrameMaker) will hardly become a brochure or a colorful web site.

Paolo

I only mentioned DreamWeaver output for it's HTML aspect. No need to go further. I can't comment on how its HTML compares to FM's HTML output.

You haven't mentioned the kinds of layouts in your documents. If they are the technical publication model common in FrameMaker, one main text flow, perhaps disconnected sidebar text frames, but more likely either anchored-frame or single-cell tables for sidebars, graphics imported by reference and anchored in the main text flow, graphic captions in the text flow that maintain simple or compound (chapter# - graphic #) captions, Left, Right, and custom master pages, the two products are quite close now. I'd expect more overlap some day in future releases, especially if there's a lot of user request.

Please let me know if I've left anything unclear.

I think you'll find some irritation in the following differences, in addition to the lack of run-in paragraphs:

* ID lacks FM's true side head paragraph formats, and true straddle paragraph formats with attributes to cross two or more columns, and reflow text above and below the straddle.

* ID, like most word-processing and publication tools, uses additive space between paragraphs, vs. FM's "larger space wins." While both are serviceable, FrameMaker users often like the simpler computation required when planning paragraph formats.

*  ID lacks table footnotes; cross-references are a workaround.

* ID lacks the tablesheet text variable; no easy workaround

* ID lacks the table continuation text variable; a bit of table smarts works around this lack.

Thanks for your questions and counter-points. It's good exercise!<G>

HTH

Regards,

Peter

_______________________

Peter Gold

KnowHow ProServices

[fogharty]

I'm beginning to lose sight of who said what to whom. :^)

We have officially stopped working with FM 7.0 for new publications, and just edit already existing files as needed. So we have turned to MS Word for our publications, unfortunately we are using MD Word 2004 because of the loss of macros in Word 2008.

We have very style-heavy templates, graphics are placed into tables for reasonable text flow, and pagination is handled at the very end when we convert 30-40 .doc files into pdfs. It takes more time than our previous process, especially for the production of the web files that mirror the print document. We used to be able to use structured FM files to create xml, which then had PERL scripts run on them to generate .html output, and although the process was pretty clunky, designed by someone who was learning as he went, it still worked.... if only in OS 9.

But more work with less staff keeps our jobs secure, at least for now.

Still would be nice to continue to use FrameMaker, though. ID, with its Story Editor, just doesn't seem to be what we need. And I've always thought that it was ridiculous for proto-ID, otherwise known as PageMaker, to recommend that a publication's content be done in MS Word, then imported into PM for final layout.

[Paolo T]

Peter,

You are describing fantastic features, but in my view more interesting for graphic artists instead of technical writers. I'm happy with the control FM allows on typography, and the printed output from my older FM6 Mac documents looks definitely good.

At the same time, some formatting features I (and most technical writers) rely very often, like headings over multiple columns, side-head headings and run-in paragraphs, are easy to do in FM, and a fatiguing workaround in ID. One day these features might appear in ID, but at the moment they are not there.

Fogharty, I planned to remain in FM for how good it is in general; but the several troubles I'm into with working under Windows made me decide to further evaluate switching to OpenOffice in the near future. It is not as reliable as FM used to be, and very involuted (as Word is) in common tasks like cross-references, indexes, external picture linking, books. But I'm balancing between different problems, here, instead of different features, and Windows does indeed look like the worse problem.

Paolo

[peter_minneapolis]

Paolo Tramannoni wrote:

Peter,

You are describing fantastic features, but in my view more interesting for graphic artists instead of technical writers. I'm happy with the control FM allows on typography, and the printed output from my older FM6 Mac documents looks definitely good.

At the same time, some formatting features I (and most technical writers) rely very often, like headings over multiple columns, side-head headings and run-in paragraphs, are easy to do in FM, and a fatiguing workaround in ID. One day these features might appear in ID, but at the moment they are not there.

I agree that these essential constructs in technical documents, that FrameMaker creates via paragraph attributes, rather than requiring manual effort, are boons to working efficiently. Authors who rely on them cannot justify moving to InDesign for the benefits its other features, if they come with the burden of having to employ inefficient workarounds.

Fogharty, I planned to remain in FM for how good it is in general; but the several troubles I'm into with working under Windows made me decide to further evaluate switching to OpenOffice in the near future. It is not as reliable as FM used to be, and very involuted (as Word is) in common tasks like cross-references, indexes, external picture linking, books. But I'm balancing between different problems, here, instead of different features, and Windows does indeed look like the worse problem.

Paolo

Regards,

Peter
_______________________
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices