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.
Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe
Subject:Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe From:Todd Sieling <tsieling -at- DIRECT -dot- CA> Date:Sat, 22 May 1999 16:47:47 -0700
I have to second Mr. Barefoot's points on the intuitiveness of Word over
Frame. I would like to add another, more generalized way in which Word is
far more approachable by an outsider: the simple fact that you can move
table borders, graphics, words, sentences and paragraphs by clicking and
dragging (or dragging and dropping if you prefer a more rugged way of
putting it). Using the mouse to redefine the positions and sizes of various
objects compared with the tedium of mucking about in a dialog box with
numeric measurements is, I think, a good example of how software can in fact
be intuitive.
Todd Sieling
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Technical Writers List; for all Technical Communication issues
> [mailto:TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU]On Behalf Of Darren Barefoot
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 12:30 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe
>
>
> Without opening up the beastly Word/Frame debate, here's my two cents on
> intuitiveness:
>
> Intuition: a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of
> rational processes; immediate cognition.
>
> Denigrating familiarity in software design is, I think,
> ill-advised. MS Word
> is intuitive, and more intuitive than FrameMaker, because it adheres to
> Microsoft's standards for interfaces. If I've used Access, or
> Front Page or
> any other (ubiquitous) Microsoft product, I intuitively
> understand how Word
> operates. The very commonness of Microsoft's products makes them familiar
> and thus intuitive. The icons, menus, ToolTips, online Help etc. are
> generally consistent. The same can't be said for FrameMaker or any of the
> Adobe products--each product has a different look, and, for example,
> FrameMaker's help system is, to be gentle, irritatingly unique. Word's
> dialog boxes are, simply put, better designed. Compare the Preferences
> dialog box in Frame with the Options dialog box in Word. Which is
> easier to
> use? Which provides more functionality?
>
> Let's be honest. If you took somebody who'd never used a computer
> before and
> offered them these two products, which one would they find easier to use?
>
> I will admit that FrameMaker has certain advantages over MS Word.
> Intuitiveness is not one of them. DB.
>