What is new in RoboHelp 8 for Word ?

Report · Jul 24, 2009

Did Adobe make any fixes or add any new stuff to the RH for Word with the version 8?

The only features they describe where RH for Word is mentioned on the Feature page was how to NOT install it by default.

Any one using this that used past versions see differences?

Report · Jul 28, 2009

The fact that there is an option NOT to install the application should tell you something about the continued development RH for Word. The fact is that there is a dwindling population of people using it, expecially since Vista does not have support out of the box for WinHelp files. The cold hard light of day makes RH for Word unnecessary unless you have to produce WinHelp output. If I was at Adobe I doubt whether I'd get my developers to spend much time on a product that is not widely used

Read the RoboColum(n).

Report · Jul 28, 2009

I truly hope that is not the case. I find the beauty of RH for Word very productive in managing content. I haven't generated WinHelp output in years. I do generate a chm file for my own local use only because of the search highlight feature (this feature is not available in WebHelp output without using ctrl+f on each page). My final published output is WebHelp and the content is very dynamic.

Most of my input comes from others who submit their content in Word docs or spreadsheets. A good chunk of the content contains tables. Using RH for Word, I don't have to rebuild tables from scratch -- especially when the content changes frequently. The find and replace of Word is easier to do than RoboHtml. I am also able to group content into different Word docs so it is easier to manage from an authoring point of view. The "paint" feature of Word also is very useful for consistent looking output.

Just because there isn't a lot of chatter about RoboHelp for Word doesn't mean that no one uses it. It works very well. The only time there are problems is when Microsoft changes Word and those problems are just bumps in the road. RH for Word is a mature product that only needs tweaking once in a while. It is also easy to use because the Word knowledge lowers the learning curve. To abandon it would be sad.

In the corporate world, there are many companies who have not made the move to Vista.

Just to give you some background on what I produce, my WebHelp system contains:

1363 htm pages
built using 19 docx files totaling 4.06 MB, rtf output is 58.1MB
there ard links to 57 external files
there are 1833 links for mailtos and to access external websites
my audience is 1000+ users in North America and the UK
the WebHelp is basically a web site sitting on an intranet
updates are made at least twice weekly

I do use RoboHtml for some smaller help systems, but those are mostly help systems that contain less than 50 pages. To maintain my afore mentioned WebHelp system using RoboHtml would, unfortunately, very much decrease my productivity.

So I'm hopeful the "powers that be" continue to provide RoboHelp for Word and possible fix some issues and add some minor enhancements.

Anyhow, I'm still looking for feedback on what may have changed. Apologies for getting on the soapbox.

Report · Jul 28, 2009

Hi there

Colum is a teensy bit misleading in his reply. Certainly he is spot on with most of it, but the bit about WinHelp not being supported out of the box on Vista is technically incorrect.

What is technically correct is that 32 bit WinHelp is not directly supported. The first time you attempt to run a 32 bit WinHelp file you are prompted to download the 32 bit WinHelp display engine. But support out of the box is there for 16 bit WinHelp with no download needed.

princess betty wrote:
I do generate a chm file for my own local use only because of the search highlight feature (this feature is not available in WebHelp output without using ctrl+f on each page)...

What version are you using? Search highlighting in WebHelp was introduced in version 7.

princess betty wrote:
...It is also easy to use because the Word knowledge lowers the learning curve. To abandon it would be sad....

The interface for RoboHelp HTML is easier to use than Word. The biggest hurdle many face is the loss of Tab Stops. You really would do yourself a favor if you tried RoboHelp HTML. It too is a very nice (and mature) product.

princess betty wrote:
I do use RoboHtml for some smaller help systems, but those are mostly help systems that contain less than 50 pages. To maintain my afore mentioned WebHelp system using RoboHtml would, unfortunately, very much decrease my productivity....

I'd say it depends greatly on how you structured your content. I never noticed that I had any sort of productivity loss as a result of switching. Sure, you have multiple documents with many topics in each document. In the RoboHelp HTML world each topic is an HTML page. But you knew that already. What I'm guessing may be news for you is that you may organize HTML pages into folders.

Cheers... Rick

Helpful and Handy Links

Report · Jul 28, 2009

Don't worry about "getting on your soapbox". It is good that we feel passionate about this product. All I was trying to say was that most of what can be done in RH for Word can be done in RH HTML. OK it may be done differently but it can be done. It is horses for courses of course.

With your scenario you may be interested to try out the new feature in RH8 HTML that allows you to link Word (or FrameMaker) documents to a RH project. This means all you have to do when a Word file has been updated is update the link to it in your project and the topics created from it are automatically updated with the changes. This may dramatically reduce the amount of time it takes to produce your help source. Just a thought.

Read the RoboColum(n).