Chapter Title Name variable in FM10

[Guest]

I am tweaking a template that I created, which was based on the standard book templates that came with FM10. For some reason, when I insert the Chapter Title Name variable, the actual chapter title does not appear. Instead, the name of the file does. I read in the help PDF that you can use the variable to propagate the folder name, but I don't need to do this. I just want the Chapter Title to appear in each file in the book.

Is there anyway to fix this? I did change almost all the paragraph tags, so maybe I need to have the variable point to my new ChapterTitle paragraph tag? This issue occurs in every file in the book.

I'm running FM 10.0.2.419 on Win 7 32-bit. I also have CS5 installed (not sure if this makes a difference or not).

Thanks for the help,

Smitty

[Arnis_Gubins · Accepted solution]

You need to setup a hierarchical book using Folders in order to properly pickup the $chaptertitlename variable the way you want.

See this blog and contained demo that crudely shows how it's used: http://blogs.adobe.com/techcomm/2009/09/fm9_hierarchical_books_new_variable.html

Note: even though the blog never actually mentions the name of the variable, it is talking about the $chaptertitlename. This is an early example of Adobe's new stealth documentation approach via blogs using the Catch-22 methodology.

If you want to insert the Chapter Title (content picked up from a paratag) in the header or footer of your master pages, then use one of the Running H/F variables, specify the paratag name, e.g. <$paratext[ChapterTitle]>,  and forget about trying to decipher the meaning in the help file. [Your sanity will thank you for it.]

[Jeff_Coatsworth]

"stealth documentation" - love it!!!

[Guest]

Thanks, Arnis.

I figured I would have to just create another Running H/F variable, but I feel I shouldn't have to since Adobe has a ChapterTitleName variable already...but who said software was supposed to be logical?

Also, thanks for the "stealth" documentation (although, you're right - I need my sanity more than anything right now). I'm not sure why Adobe feels the need to be "stealthy" with their help documentation - it's not like their users are going to use that information against them...or are we???

Thanks again,

Smitty

[Bob_Niland]

> I'm not sure why Adobe feels the need to be "stealthy" with their help documentation

I've conjectured that the appalling state of FM documentation since FM8 shows deliberate intent by Adobe to only sell this product to people who already know how to use it. Another explanation would be management decree to avoid embarrassing ID, which seems to be struggling to match FM in many key features..

I suspect that there is on-going tension between the InDesign and FM factions in Adobe as they compete for sole possession of the Adobe DTP charter.

The FM team has been investing to add useful capabilities to FM, but is not investing in documentation of them to a comparable degree. This is inexcusable for a product that postures as the optimal application for doing just that. Adobe could get away with this nonsense back during that brief period when there was no competing DTP app.

[RoboColum_n_]

I am not defending the "Stealth Documentation" but I will say that this is not a problem unique to FM. Other Adobe products suffer the same fate, not just InDesign or products in the TechComm Suite. IMHO this is an Adobe initiative that has come down from on high. The various Product Managers have to make do with blog posts, eSeminars and other attempts to reach out to the user community.

[Dov Isaacs]

Error7103 wrote:

...

I suspect that there is on-going tension between the InDesign and FM factions in Adobe as they compete for sole possession of the Adobe DTP charter.

...

For better or worse, there is absolutely no such “tension between the InDesign and FM factions in Adobe.” The product teams are in totally separate business units and are not competing against each other in any way for any “sole possession of the Adobe DTP charter.” There is no such charter.

          - Dov

[Matt S - Tech Comm Tools]

Reminds me of the Helpful Honda Commercials...

"Somewhere, in the long-abandoned rooms of a professional type house..."

Yes, if an InDesign team and a FrameMaker team are wasting time worrying about the other, I certainly have suggestions for each on stuff they could be doing!!

[Bob_Niland]

> For better or worse, there is absolutely no such “tension between the InDesign and FM factions in Adobe.”

Well, thanks for setting me straight on that, Dov. But the general Adobe silence on the underlying issue of non-documentation does leave us users in the position of speculating on just what the heck is going on. And I have to note that you didn't address that at this opportunity, so we wonder away.

Sure, post-modern apps rarely come with a manual anymore, which might be OK for end-user content-consumer apps. But content-generator apps need docs.

If you must, commission a proper deep-dive FM "Document Architect's Reference" manual and charge money for it. We'll buy it.

In my day job business, we have competitors with shoddy or unusable HTML user manuals and/or Charge-Through-the-Nose unfree manuals ($100+ for a PDF). We love having competitors like that.