Re: Revisiting Frame vs. Word in light of new capabilities

[Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>]

> I need your help in convincing management to continue
> to use the newly acquired FrameMaker 7.1 to which I
> have transferred Word documents in English. 

Migration of content has a cost in time away from productive work.

> The
> question is whether to buy Frame for the Japanese
> versions of the documents and pay for the software and
> training of a translator who is used to translating
> from Word. 

Internal translator or outsourced? Either way, any translator worth
their salt should be using some form of translation memory. Trados and
SDLX, two of the more prominent translation memory tools, can both
accept FM files/MIF files and store them in memory. Translators then
work on the translation and then use the memory tool to burp out the
translation back in the initial format. Word vs. FM is irrelevent.

> Using Frame
> for English versions, and Word for Japanese is also
> not acceptable. I will have to switch to Word, or the
> Japanese translator to Frame. I will apprecieate your
> feedback on the following:

Again, no one needs to change.

> Between Word 2000 and FrameMaker 7.1, which is better
> for technical writers? I know the answer, but need to
> convince some folks who have received the following
> reasons to use Word (We use Word 2000, but may move to
> Word 2003 if such regressive improvement on tools is
> approved.)

Either works, to be honest. There is no "better" tool, generally
speaking. Rather, the work you need to perform surrounding the cration
of content will influence your tools needs.

> 1. Word is popular. It means we can hire any
> substitute if current one (tech writer/translator to
> Japanese) is resigned or terminated.

No. Anyone can come in and use FM or Word with minimal ramp-up time.
Likewise, anyone can come in and misuse either tool easily. Can you
say "Normal"?

> 2. Software is not expensive.

Is this an argument for Word or FM? Also, how expensive is workflow
compared to each tool and its use?

> 3. We do not worry about localization cost since ever
> country uses Word and we can find some one to do the
> work easy.

Translation costs have as much to do with Word as they do with what
soda is in the vending machines.

> 4. Functionalities are very much same today.

Huh? Explain this one.

> 5. Word will be more powerful than FrameMaker in near
> future. [Wow! Hurry up and buy the stock! Just
> kidding]

Reasoning? Do they know something I don't?

> 6. We have to spend a lot of time and money to convert
> to Japanese for if we have to use FrameMaker.

What's the breakdown? Having worked in translation and having a close
relationship with our localization department here, I can tell you
that there is minimal cost difference between Word and FM source files
being translated.

> * The manuals (currently 11) need to be frequently
> updated (once every two to three months).

You're using translation memory, correct?

> * Complete overhaul of directions, which are in third
> person passive tense (Format: "The user is required to
> invoke the xyz screen by clicking on abc".)

This has nothing to do with Word vs. FM.

> * Stable formats (styles in Word)

Can be achieved with either tool.

> * Output to clean HTML

Can be achieved with either tool. Consider WebWorks Publisher
Professional for either Word or FM.

> * Output to XML (nice to have)

See above, though both Word and FM can do that natively as well.

> * Timeframe: 11 manuals: updated drafts from new
> content within next 18 days. Final books with PDF in
> 12 days.

Counds like a reason to stay put, if you ask me. Why is your boss
recommending change NOW if the deadline is so close?

> * Does Word support page numbering and automatic
> updates of the book after deletion or addition of
> pages and chapters? How about TOC, TOF, numbering of
> figures, chapters?

I'm sure it can be done.

> * How well does the Publisher (or whatever it takes to
> make a book with chapters and TOC, TOF, Index,
> Glossary, and so on) function work (I hear you could
> put chapters together, but when I tried to use it, I
> gave up)?

Not sure what you mean.

> * Does index work smoothly and efficiently?

Indexing is possible in either tool.

> 1. Is Word better for writing these documents, or
> FrameMaker?

Not enough info to say, to be honest. I know nothing of your workflow
to be able to validate a decisive answer. Heck, could be neither!

> 2. Would you switch from FrameMaker to Word?

If the conditions and workflow warranted it, yes. A tool's a tool.

> 3. Are there solutions to localization issue other
> than switching to Word? Is FrameMaker better at
> solving localization problems, or Word?

Localization issues are not inherent to the tool in which you develop content.

> 4. Does Word support Rubi (Japanese) text?

Probably.

> 5. Is finding writers with FrameMaker skills so
> difficult that a switch to Word is warranted?

No.

> 6. Finally, the Ann Landers queston, are you better
> off with Frame, or without it?

Currently I'm better off, since it best fits the workflow we use. ;-)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo:
http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

Doc-To-Help 7.5 Professional: New version with new features, improved performance and reliability, plus much more!  Download your free trial today at www.componentone.com/techwrlfeb.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.