Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe

[Todd Sieling <tsieling -at- DIRECT -dot- CA>]

I'm sorry, but marketing clout does not define success. What of Microsoft
Bob? What of Channels in Internet Explorer? What of Active-X components
targeted for the Web? There are all MS ideas that never flew and that MS has
had to eat the cost in what amounts to failed products or product
components/features. While I don't think that it is your intent, I think the
implication of your statement, that millions of people who run otherwise
very successful businesses set in competitive industries, have been
hoodwinked or hypnotized by aggressive marketing, is off-color if not
completely off the mark.

And as far as the logical consistency of posts on the list goes (as you
roundly browbeat another contributor for), you yourself are guilty of making
a statement and then following up with different evidence (stating the
reason for Word's success, and then inviting benchmark comparisons of
database management programs as a proof).

If you want to make a statement about where marketing oversteps reasonable
bounds, go ahead, but gross oversimplifications do a disservice to us all.

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 Tom Huffman
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 3:35 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe
>
>
> Kat:
>
> Word has achieved the dominance it has achieved for one reason
> only: it's made
> by Microsoft. For example, I challenge anyone to objectively compare the
> relative power and ease of use of MS Access vs. Lotus Approach and then to
> report with a straight face that Access wins. However, it kills
> Approach in the
> database market, just like Word kills WordPerfect.
>
> ******
>
> > At 12:29 PM 05/21/1999 -0700, Darren Barefoot wrote:
> > >MS Word
> > >is intuitive, and more intuitive than FrameMaker,
> > >because it adheres to
> > >Microsoft's standards for interfaces.   [snip]
> > >The very commonness of Microsoft's
> > >products makes them familiar and thus intuitive.
> >
> > I used Microsoft products for years before I tried Frame.  They
> never felt
> > intuitive, even though I've gotten a reputation as a 'power user' at
> > several client sites.  I can make Word jump through hoops, but it feels
> > more like training an obstreperous rottweiler than riding a well-trained
> > horse.
> >
> > The first time I used Frame, I fell in love.  The way the menus are
> > organized, the logical approach to complex tasks---now
> >that's<  intuitive!
> >
> > Frame's organization and functions suit the way my mind works.  Word
> > doesn't.  Different strokes for different folks, Darren.
> > Kat Nagel
> > MasterWork Consulting Services            katnagel -at- eznet -dot- net
> > "Every year, back comes Spring, with nasty little birds
> >  yapping their fool heads off and the ground all mucked
> >  up with plants."                              --Dorothy Parker
> >
> >
> ==================================================================
> =========
>
> --
> Tom Huffman
> tlhuffman -at- earthlink -dot- net
> Corel C_Tech Volunteer
>
>
> ==================================================================
> =========
>
>
>


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