Re: Productivity Metrics: MS Word vs Structured Authoring (longish ramble)

[Barbara Karst-Sabin <barbara -at- QUOTE -dot- COM>]

This is pretty hard to quantify, since the products have such different
nomenclature and methodology between/among them.  There's quite a
learning curve making the switch from one to the other.

<RAMBLE>
        I've gone from Quark to Word to Framemaker and back to Word again --
each package can do some things better than others, and each package can
do things that the others can't.

        I've got to admit I'm having the most trouble re-adapting to Word after
using Frame and Quark.  It seems niggling, cranky, and clunky by
comparison and has lots more gotchas than the other two.

        Although you want the differences quantified (and I wouldn't even try
to guess), I can tell you that for lengthy doc or docs with lots of
formatting, I prefer Quark or Frame.  Word chokes way too often for my
peace of mind.

        I also think most people who have used Word in the past will be amazed
at the increased functionality of a Quark or Frame and never want to go
back (although Frame is fairly counterintuitive, once you learn it's
quirks and foibles, you really can do a lot with it).

        If you build training into your equation, I think Word will be left in
the dust (IMNSHO).

</RAMBLE>

HALL Bill wrote:
>
> People,
>

> Basically, what I am after is
>
> 1.   a percentage change in productivity, based on actual experience, that
> can be
>       expected from moving from  word to the other tool,
>
><etc.>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=