Re: Framemaker? (from techwr-l)

[Mitch Berg <mberg -at- IS -dot- COM>]

Wing, Michael J wrote:

> >I was able to reproduce their style guide using Word, and had NO
> >problems. Plus, I was able to use features that Frame is light
> >years away from implementing properly - sort, search and replace,
> >import, publish and subscribe.

Frame lags badly in some of those areas.

OTOH, having implemented volatile, huge (four-digit) projects that
needed to be portable across platforms and media (HTML, RTF and most
popular word processors), I would tear my hair out in Word.  (Been
there, done that).  Frame is light years ahead in each of these areas.
And that's why I buy it.

> By the way, how does Frame's total sales and WP market share compare
> with Word?  I would think to be "the industry standard" it would have
> the Lion's share.

For doing huge, volatile documents with minimal effort, I think 4 out of
5 dentists - er, infodevs - who've used both, would give Frame the nod.
I know that, as a contractor, I left a trail of converts in my path.
> >
> >Personally, if I never have to use Frame again, I am happy. I only
> >develop online help now, anyway, and code it all straight in HTML.

Try WebWorks, which works with Frame.  Automates the whole HTML process,
seamlessly.  Saves a staggering amount of time, especially if you need
to produce paper AND HTML.  (Word?  Hah!)
> >

> I'll take either Word or FrameMaker.  I like them both.

For the right purposes, they are both right!

--
Mitch Berg
mberg -at- is -dot- com

"The average American has the attention span of a ferret on double
espresso"
  -- Dennis Miller