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:Re: FrameMaker vs. Interleaf From:Krista van Laan <vanlaan -at- GAMGEE -dot- NTC -dot- NOKIA -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:09:55 +0200
Chris Welch-Hutchings wrote:
> I'm looking for information on Framemaker vs. Interleaf as a
> production
> tool. I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has migrated
> from
> Interleaf to Framemaker, or vice-versa, and what you like or
> don't like
> about your new tool.
Both are good and both do the job. I prefer Interleaf because
I think it's more powerful, but it would probably make no
difference to someone buying for the first time, except that
I guess it's more expensive than
FrameMaker. However, your situation doesn't really seem to be
about the merits oftransitioning from Interleaf to FrameMaker or
vice-versa, as you go on to describe this unpleasant situation:
> My current employer uses Interleaf, but the writers don't have
> access to
> it. We use Word to produce draft docs, which are then passed
> to a team of
> Interleaf formatters. For revisions, the writers mark-up
> existing Interleaf
> docs and submit these for formatting.
<snip>
> I am absolutely convinced that it is far more efficient to
> produce docs
> directly in Framemaker, but no one here has ever used it and
> my pleas are
> falling on deaf ears. Can anyone point me to supporting data
> or share their
> experiences?
It seems to me that since your employer has Interleaf already,
it might be reasonable to ask them to buy some more licenses
for the writers to use Interleaf as well, instead of introducing
yet another tool (especially when you're the only one in house
who's an expert at it) that the production group would have
to learn how to use. If you're all using the same tool, then
you aren't threatening to drive them out of a job -- you can
share the work, maybe. That would be the most efficient: using
a great tool that your company has already paid for and that
a bunch of people already know how to use.
Your situation sounds like the old days, when we would write
ASCII or word-processed text and give it to typesetters. Desktop-
publishing tools like Interleaf were supposed to do away with that,
not mimic it!
========================================================================
Krista Van Laan Phone: 358 9 511 23684
Nokia Telecommunications Oy Fax: 358 9 511 23554
P.O. Box 320 Email: krista -dot- vanlaan -at- ntc -dot- nokia -dot- com
FIN-00045 NOKIA GROUP Finland Office: Hiomotie 5 FIN-00380 Helsinki
