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.
Back when Adobe swallowed up Frame Technology, I recall
an acquaintance of mine who worked for Frame (and didn't
any longer after the change of ownership) saying that most of
the brains behind Frame had departed, taking the real knowledge
about how the program worked "under the hood" with them.
Since then Adobe has put lots of effort into tacking things onto
the edges of FrameMaker, but making changes to its basic
operations - for example, adding those multiple levels of Undo -
seem to escape them. I wonder if that's an indication that
they're still uneasy messing with the core of the program.
> On an unrelated note, I wonder why Frame
> stubbornly refueses to (or maybe just does not
> bother to) simplify their interface and make it
> more user- or writer-friendly. Is it that the
> very features - such as multiple undo's - that
> make word so appealing in turn prove to be its
> undoing when the doc length approaches 100 pages?
