*Slightly off-topic*
For the record, although I agree that FM is far and away the more
professional and versatile tool for extended publications, I have been
won over to MS Word's ribbon. I also used to think of it as unintuitive
- but after watching the video below and studying their UI design,
For the effort they put into redesigning their user interface, I would
have massively preferred that they hold off on the eye candy and
addressed more fundamental problems with the application. However, as a
user, what I prefer isn't what Microsoft normally listens to. All of
that work could
I think it's also telling that corporations don't normally train you on
New GUI in an app. IT tosses it over the fence and the user has to
cope on their own without much support at all, and little documentation.
This video isn't useful to most users. It isn't available to most users.
I think
I think it's also telling that corporations don't normally train you on
"New" GUI in an app. IT tosses it over the fence and the user has to
cope on their own without much support at all, and little documentation.
This video isn't useful to most users. It isn't available to most users.
I think
Hi,
I am a fanatical Frame user but it looks as though I am going to have to
convert my docs to Word (long story, but half my company's docs are written
using Word). I know this question comes up time after time, but most responses
refer to old reviews and comparisons (though probably the only
You need to come up with a matrix of YOUR specific documentation
requirements, and work from that, as every comparison I'm aware of is
woefully out of date. You may want to start here for a list to work
from:
http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/comparison.html
Because everyone else
I have to agree with Carla on this point. Although, I'm tempted to amend her
statement to say it would take AT LEAST 25-30% longer. I haven't used the
most recent version of Word either, but I'm sure if things had improved, I'd
have heard about it through the grapevine.
Nadine
--- On Thu,
I have used Word 2007. They tried to fix what wasn't broken. And no,
they didn't fix either the numbering system or multi-file operations.
It's still oriented toward smaller documents with less complexity.
I also would avoid it for any XML work. My preference, but their past
history of munging
Another thought.
You can use Notepad to program in various languages, but why would you
want to? You are missing so many effective and time-saving tools.
Are you producing PDF files? If so, using Word removes a boat load of
time-saving automatic tools for indexing, hypertext linking, and TOC
As the writer states in this post:
It all comes down to this:
FrameMaker is a very mature and solid product
that can handle structural complexity very well.
http://www.technicalcommunicationcenter.com/2009/02/08/which-text-editor
I don't use the latest version of Word but Word 2003 had a pretty good,
and reliable autonumbering method. Unfortunately, you had to know how to
fumble through the poorly designed interface and even more poorly
documented method for setting it up. I used it to successfully create a
numbering
I also agree. I have a client, that despite everything I have ever
demonstrated, tabulated, kept track of, etc. is insistent that I do all
original development in Word and yep, I have shown/demonstrated
unequivocally that things can take up to 30% longer to accomplish. Many,
many times, I fix A
Your millage may vary.
I found that I could get it to work, but it would blow up, either on me
at a future date, or on someone else when they opened the file, and I
would have to go and fix it.
Scott
Jon Harvey wrote:
I don't use the latest version of Word but Word 2003 had a pretty good,
Hi,
I am a fanatical Frame user but it looks as though I am going to have to
convert my docs to Word (long story, but half my company's docs are written
using Word). I know this question comes up time after time, but most responses
refer to old reviews and comparisons (though probably the only
You need to come up with a matrix of YOUR specific documentation
requirements, and work from that, as every comparison I'm aware of is
woefully out of date. You may want to start here for a list to work
from:
http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/comparison.html
"Because everyone
I have to agree with Carla on this point. Although, I'm tempted to amend her
statement to say "it would take AT LEAST 25-30% longer". I haven't used the
most recent version of Word either, but I'm sure if things had improved, I'd
have heard about it through the grapevine.
Nadine
--- On Thu,
I have used Word 2007. They tried to fix what wasn't broken. And no,
they didn't fix either the numbering system or multi-file operations.
It's still oriented toward smaller documents with less complexity.
I also would avoid it for any XML work. My preference, but their past
history of munging
Another thought.
You can use Notepad to program in various languages, but why would you
want to? You are missing so many effective and time-saving tools.
Are you producing PDF files? If so, using Word removes a boat load of
time-saving automatic tools for indexing, hypertext linking, and TOC
As the writer states in this post:
"It all comes down to this:
FrameMaker is a very mature and solid product
that can handle structural complexity very well."
http://www.technicalcommunicationcenter.com/2009/02/08/which-text-editor
I don't use the latest version of Word but Word 2003 had a pretty good,
and reliable autonumbering method. Unfortunately, you had to know how to
fumble through the poorly designed interface and even more poorly
documented method for setting it up. I used it to successfully create a
numbering
I also agree. I have a client, that despite everything I have ever
demonstrated, tabulated, kept track of, etc. is insistent that I do all
original development in Word and yep, I have shown/demonstrated
unequivocally that things can take up to 30% longer to accomplish. Many,
many times, I fix "A"
Your millage may vary.
I found that I could get it to work, but it would blow up, either on me
at a future date, or on someone else when they opened the file, and I
would have to go and fix it.
Scott
Jon Harvey wrote:
> I don't use the latest version of Word but Word 2003 had a pretty good,
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
