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.
I try not to use Word for tech docs. It is not true WYSIWYG, it has
major problems with its auto-numbering feature, it doesn't handle long
docs or multi-file books very well, and it doesn't give you the
sophisticated document design control that a package like FrameMaker
has. If you need to provide soft copy of your docs in an editable format
to other groups, than Word is probably your best bet, but if your docs
will be provided as hard copy only (or converted to PDF), then I
strongly recommend FrameMaker over Word. Although FrameMaker has a tough
initial learning curve for those not familiar with DTP concepts, the
tutorials are a great help, and I think it's definitely worth the
investment in time and money.
Other packages on the market are PageMaker, Ventura Publisher, and
Quark. PageMaker is designed more for brochures, flyers, etc. than long
documents, so is not really a good choice for technical manuals. My
experience with Ventura Publisher is from five years ago, but I
understand that folks that have used both Publisher and FrameMaker
fairly recently generally prefer FrameMaker. I haven't used Quark,
although a lot of print shops seem to recommend it. My understanding is
that it is designed more for producing very graphic intensive books with
little text. I also hear that it has some limitations regarding
generated tables of contents and indices.
Snip --- Snip --- Snip --- Snip
I completely agree with Chris.
We use FrameMaker for all of our external technical documents (converted from
PageMaker around the time I started here). Other departments here use MS Word
for various projects and documents, which require soft copy distribution. They
like Word because they're used to it, it suits their needs, and they don't
need to learn new software. Here in the Tech Pubs corner, FrameMaker is the
law of the land, and we are better for it.
I used Quark XPress in college during a design class. I also used it while
working through college as a proofreader/typesetter for an ad company. Quark
is very good for advertising, layout, and design applications. It is no good
for technical documentation, IMHO. The course I spoke of was required for tech
comm grads. I recently heard that my almamater is rethinking their strategy
and moving toward exposing students to Frame. In fact, I'm on my back in
September to give a Frame workshop to tech comm students.
As for PageMaker... Good for brochures and flyers but hideous for technical
apps. If you don't believe me, have PageMaker go head to head against
FrameMaker.
PageMaker? I vote we, as technical writers, just call it RageMaker and be
done with it.
Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
