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:Word versus FrameMaker From:"USA::MU17692" <MU17692%USA -dot- decnet -at- USAV01 -dot- GLAXO -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 13 Jan 1995 10:59:00 EST
Kelly Burhenne wrote
>Anyway, though I use neither Word nor FrameMaker, Word is a word
>processing package while FrameMaker is a desktop publisher. Need I say
>more?
This oversimplifies the problem and the decision-making criteria.
PageMaker and Quark Express define a niche for themselves that
demonstrates a key deficiency in Kelly's statement. That is, there
are at least *three* categories of document production sofware, and
the programs in these categories provide--usually in a very limited
way--overlapping functionality.
On page 272 of the January 1995 issue of Windows magazine, you can
read a useful comparison of six different document publishing
programs. Word, WordPerfect, and Interleaf are notably absent from
the comparison, which in itself reveals an implicit definition of
categories.
The three categories I envision are
(1) document publishing, short-medium documents
(1-350 pages)
(2) document publishing, long documents (350 or more
pages)
(3) page layout and publishing (short documents only)
Under category 1 I see Word for Windows, WordPerfect, and Ventura
Publisher. (I don't much about Microsoft Publisher 2.0 or
PagePlus 3.0)
Under category 2 I see Interleaf and FrameMaker.
Under category 3 I see Quark Express and PageMaker.
(A fourth category could be mark-up languages such as BookMaster.
However, I would rather not contemplate the use of such dinosaurs.)
I am sure my colleagues have opinions on these matters.
-Mike Uhl (uhl~m -at- glaxo -dot- com)
Glaxo Inc. Research Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC
