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: Which do I use? PageMaker? FrameMaker? Quark? From:"Porrello, Leonard" <lcporrel -at- ESSVOTE -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:12:00 -0600
Earline,
I think you've almost got it. PageMaker and Quark are better for shorter, _more_ graphic intensive projects. Graphics usually means pictures of various sorts. And for manipulating these, PageMaker and Quark are better tools. For example, PageMaker takes for granted that you'll want to generate press ready, color separated proofs.
Leonard Porrello
-----Original Message-----
From: earline_g [SMTP:earline_g -at- HOTMAIL -dot- COM]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 7:16 AM
To: TECHWR-L; LCPORREL
Subject: Re: Which do I use? PageMaker? FrameMaker? Quark?
The verdict is in:
FrameMaker is the best tool for lengthy technical manuals.
PageMaker and Quark are suited for shorter, less graphic-intensive
documents like brochures and flyers.
