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: QuarkXPress vs. FrameMaker From:Ann Howell <ahowell -at- POOLMAIL -dot- DOLPHINSOFTWARE -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:19:26 -0400
It all depends what you want to do. As a long-time Quark user who has recently
switched to FM, I can say that you will lose a lot of functionality by
"downgrading" to Quark. Although the interface is a lot simpler, things like
file-sharing and HTML generation are not integrated into the program. Quark is
fine for creating short-to-medium length documents. You have paragraph and
character style sheets just like FM and the latest version even has an indexing
function built-in (though that is fairly clunky -- you may want to consider a
third-party plug-in for that). But if you need to create long manuals that need
to be cross-referenced, edited by multiple users and published on-line, I would
stick with FM.
Just out of curiosity, why are they prompting the switch?
