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.
Quadralay's Webworks 2000 vs. InfoAccess' HTML Transit: A Publishing Scenario Quiz
Subject:Quadralay's Webworks 2000 vs. InfoAccess' HTML Transit: A Publishing Scenario Quiz From:"Tristan Bishop" <claritydocs -at- earthlink -dot- net> To:<Framers -at- FrameUsers -dot- com>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:48:37 -0700
Good evening,
I'm researching single-source solutions for a major Online bank who
currently uses MS Office Windows applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) for
their documentation. The client has recently decided to add FrameMaker
5.5.6 for Procedural Manuals, Training documents and the like. Now, we seek
input on the stronger HTML solution, Quadralay's WebWorks 2000 or
InfoAccess' HTML Transit.
In testing both products, WW2K seems to provide greater control of HTML
output. However, WW2K "generates" HTML only from Frame documents. Transit
"translates" both Frame and MS Office documents into HTML.
GOALS: The WebMaster and the Publishing Department are looking for three
things:
maximum content control
maximum output control
minimum maintenance effort
I seek input on which of these Scenarios will best meet the above goals:
OPTIONS:
Scenario A: Content arrives at Publishing Department in multiple MS Office
formats (Word, Excel, PowerPoint). The Publishing Department manually
converts all content to FrameMaker (applying templates and paragraph
formats, etc.) and "generates" HTML in WW2K.
Scenario B: Content arrives at the Publishing Department in multiple MS
Office formats. The Publishing Department converts only the training and
procedural content into FrameMaker. All other content (communications,
bulletins, phone number lists, etc) is left in it's original MS Office
formats. Then all content is "Translated" to HTML using HTML Transit.
Scenario C: Content arrives at the Publishing Department in multiple MS
Office formats. The Publishing Department converts the training and
procedural content into FrameMaker manuals. The Publishing Department
generates HTML from the FrameMaker files using WW2K. Then, the remaining MS
Office content is Translated to HTML using HTML Transit.
Which scenario is the best business solution?
Which scenario is the least amount of development work for the Publishing
Department?
Which scenario will require the least amount of manual maintenance for the
Publishing Department?
Thanks so much for any advice you're able to provide,
