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 really have to disagree with most of what Heather's anonymous source had to
say about Forehelp vs. Robohelp.
> RoboHelp is the most popular help authoring tool by far (probably 90% of the
> market). More help authors have RoboHelp experience than ForeHelp
> experience, so RoboHelp is better if learning curve is a major factor.
>
What does market share have to do with learning curve? It may have something to
do with finding trained users, but Karen Gloor (original poster on this thread)
said her company was buying a HAT. There was no indication that recruiting help
authors was an issue. Even if it were . . . I've trained two people to use
Forehelp. Getting them to a productive stage took all of 1/2 hour. Forehelp is
extremely easy to use and documentation is good.
IMHO, Robohelp's learning curve by comparison is much tougher to battle. I have
both, because two different departments here chose separately. After cutbacks
and reorgs, I now have the pleasure of dealing with multiple tools for similar
tasks. I'll take Forehelp hands down any day. Not only was it easier for me to
learn, the datebase is so-o-o flexible.
When I've been stumped by anything in Forehelp, I've gotten a response from
their support people within a couple hours. In fact, the only stumpers I've
encountered have been as a result of our need to convert the Forehelp generated
rtfs to Hyperhelp. Basically, the folks at Forehelp have helped me out when
I've been completely unable to get any response out of Bristol (Hyperhelp
makers).
In short, I've found Forehelp's learning curve to be almost nonexistent.
> There is no particular technical reason to prefer one package over the
> other. RoboHelp is very large (over 50MB for the whole thing), and it's also
> been full of bugs in recent releases.
The fact that Robohelp is full of bugs isn't a technical reason for avoiding it?
My definition of technical reasons must be broader than anonymous's. I haven't
had to deal with workarounds and bug fixes in Forehelp, except where they were
to solve Hyperhelp problems.
>It works directly with Microsoft Word.
> All RoboHelp functions are Word macros. When you run RoboHelp you're running
> Word along with the Microsoft Help Compiler. Also if you want to create
> Microsoft's HTML-based Help, you have to install and run Internet Explorer.
>
> ForeHelp doesn't use a word processor like Word. It uses a database system
> to store its help source files. This is convenient, because you don't have
> to remember to save your work all the time - it is saved automatically.
Although a nice feature, the convenience when saving is not the most important
aspect of Forehelp's database. The ability to easily structure and restructure
your help system based on inevitable product evolution is a huge timesaver.
> ForeHelp is much deeper in its choice of functions because it doesn't depend
> on Word for its capabilities.
Sounds to me like the folks at Forehelp get to focus on their product rather
than focusing on how to work with Microsoft's.
> The problem with ForeHelp is that its
> functions are sometimes hard to understand and buried deep beneath tabs and
> options in dialog boxes. ForeHelp is not a good tool to use if you have
> never developed online help before.
Foul! If you're familiar with help terminology, the online help and manual
indexes in Forehelp make finding any feature a breeze. If you're not, both
Forehelp and Robohelp are a mystery. As for the novice help author, wading
through the books, videos, etc. that come with Robohelp are far more
intimidating.
>
> Bottom line? RoboHelp is the industry standard, and ForeHelp is the
> specialized tool. RoboHelp is easy for any Word user to understand
> initially, but it gets more difficult as you do more difficult tasks with
> help development. ForeHelp is generally harder to learn.
Industry standard vs. specialized tool? Both are specialized tools for help
development. Robohelp just brings along the baggage of another application. Is
this an advantage? Think about it, not only do you have to update Robohelp when
they add new features, but potentially any time Word changes. I can't think of
any reason why I would choose (where given the choice) to use an application
that is so closely dependent on another application.
Anonymous seems to consistently confuse market share/industry standard with ease
of use. They are two different things. Yes, a company may find it easier to
recruit someone with Robohelp experience. So what? Frequently, we hear people
on this list moan about companies that don't understand that our skills are
transferable among different word processors/DTPs or graphics packages. Skills
are also transferable among different HATs. Given how easy it is to learn
Forehelp, I think it does the product a grave injustice to build a case against
it using the industry standard argument.
