TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Framemaker vs. Pagemaker From:dbdoucette -at- bandl -dot- com To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:44:52 -0500
"Giordano, Connie" wrote:
> Is Framemaker really that commonly used? Perhaps in well-established
> companies with larger than lone tech writer departments. >snip<
We used FrameMaker when I was a lone writer. We use FM now that our tech writer
"department" numbers 2. Is this common? I don't know. But it belies your
assumption that F< is limited to companies with large tech writer departments.
> Perhaps it's because in many software companies, developers, programmers,
> and bus. analysts are contributing information to the documentation
> products, >snip<
We are a software company. Developers and programmers contribute information we
need for documentation, both in verbal and written forms. We still use
FrameMaker. Why? Because the input all has to be rewritten anyway. So we use
the tool most suited to producing cross-referenced, indexed user's guides with
page totals numbering anywhere from 350 to 1,200, and files ready for simple
conversion to PDF. And needing monthly updates and custom-coded inserts at
that.
