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. Pagemaker From:David Knopf <david -at- KNOPF -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:51:22 -0800
Kathleen Mattson asked:
| I see so much on this list about Framemaker, yet I don't see any
| mention of
| Pagemaker or Quark. I'm a Pagemaker person myself, although my company
| dictates that all the tech docs are in Word (ugh).
|
| This isn't a "Why Framemaker over Pagemaker?" question as much as it is a
| "why do *TechWriters* prefer Framemaker while Marketing and design folks
| prefer Quark and Pagemaker?" question.
Briefly: Seems to me Quark and PageMaker are ideally suited to the types of
documents produced by marketing communications folks -- brochures, data
sheets, bulletins, and the like. FrameMaker, otoh, is ideally suited for
long, complex technical documents.
