Re: Summary: Using Word's Hidden Text as a conditional....

[Tim Altom <taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET>]

At 11:10 AM 6/4/97 -0500, you wrote:

<bullet points about movement to a new writing tool>
>
>In addition, there are the implications of moving the legacy documentation
>set onto the tool. In our case, we're dealing with RTF files for WinHelp,
>as well as paper documentation. I haven't heard anyone weigh in on the
>merits of using Framemaker for producing WinHelp source.

We do it, but know that FM's RTF isn't Word's RTF. Less comes out. Graphics
are the big problem. But FM offers so many other benefits that it's worth it
to us much of the time to install graphics and links afterward rather than
futz about trying to put them into FM and get them out as RTF. The
advantage, though, is that we can use conditional text to seamlessly create
not one, and not just two, but an almost unlimited number of alternative
documents. We can, for example, do several paper versions, a PDF version,
and several different RTF/WinHelp versions from a single doc. Word can't do
that. And Word's hidden text isn't suitable for WinHelp conditional text,
because hidden text is interpreted by the RTF compiler as jumps.
>
>NOTE: I am in no way disparaging the capabilities of Framemaker or those
>who are using it. I am well aware that it is a powerful tool. But that's
>not where we're at, and I don't think we can move to it painlessly or
>quickly. If someone can prove me wrong, I'm listening.

Nothing is painless, not even standing pat. But moving to FM is similar to
selling your business single-engine prop plane and moving to a Lear. It's
naturally expensive and more complex, but if you're doing business all over
the hemisphere, you can't do it with the old stringbag anymore. Same's true
for FM. If you're writing shorties with Word (under 100 pages, give or take)
and you're doing it only occasionally, FM isn't worth it to you. But when
you graduate to long documents that should be rigorously structured and
frequently updated, you'll need FM's template power. It makes Word's
templates look like limp noodles. Like any tool, it should be put into the
tool box only after much thought. We use FM because of our need to do slick
and fast, yet complex, long and changing documents. If you have to do
multiple docs from a single parent, FM is again the best choice, but only if
that's common enough for you to make the investment worth it. And it'll be
an investment, both in time and in money. FM can save you mucho moola over
time, but only if you have enough FM-type work to warrant it.


Tim Altom
Vice President, Simply Written, Inc.
317.899.5882 (voice) 317.899.5987 (fax)
FrameMaker support  ForeHelp support
FrameMaker-to-HTML Conversions
HTML Help Consulting and Production

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html