This content has been marked as final. Show 697 replies
Okay. I'll kick it off.
1) Conditional text that uses AND logic, not OR logic as currently implemented.
2) The ability to easily swap one paragraph style for another.
3) Fix the runaround bug.
4) More and better import filters, including more up-to-date CorelDRAW!, AutoCAD, and SVG filters.
Understood, not everybody will want these. And, some might make upgrading more difficult or increase the resource requirements of FrameMaker.
5) OS X native compatibility.
6) Unicode support.
7) Up to 9 levels of undo.
8) Adobe Graphics Manager inclusion. ;-)
9) Full OpenType support!
Maybe 3 or 4 levels of undo would be nice; I doubt I'd use more (I rarely use more than one level in Word). OTOH, I *KNOW* I'd use drag-and-drop text editing.
The acid test for any new feature, though, is whether it can be implemented without making the basic application either slower or less stable.
JOOC, what's "the runaround bug"?
How about associating a text flow with a master page or pages?
Enough space after a sentence that has associated index or other marks to see that you really do have a punctuation mark there.
Symbol insertion from a table, like Word. Typing ASCII numbers is so 20th century.
Cursor movement by arrow keys from one table cell to another.
A @#%#T#$$G#HG^%$ easier way to track down missing fonts.
Not ignore them.
To positively and absolutely root-out the buggers and fix them; especially Times.
Ran into another one this morning: I'd like the ability to print out the Book file. (Yeah, I know I can do a screen shot, but it'd be so much nicer to just go File>Print Book File.)
I'd like to be able to position a table at the top of the first page text frame without having to employ a workaround every time.
I'd like to see the word "Footnote" become something like "Bibliographic Citation>" in the Special menu with a choice of Footnote or Endnote. Format... Document... would also need a place to define properties for endnotes.
I could endure all the levels of undo the marketing department wanted to throw at me if FrameMaker--The Next Generation included a reasonable means of using endnotes.
I keep getting my memory jogged.
I'd like to see a way to align "Run Into Paragraph" anchored frames with something other than the top line of the paragraph. At a minimum, I'd like the choice to align with the bottom of the paragraph; better yet, the ability to specify an offset from the top line (in either lines or absolute units) would be really useful.
1. An easier way to add new FrameMath experessions.
2. FrameMath should properly format Math expressions with any font family.
3. Proper Association of Math MML (1.0 or 2.0) to any FrameMath Expression
for inclusion in html/xml/pdf documents.
4. Ability to import MathMML to the appropriate FrameMath expression.
5. Addition of user created FrameMath pallettes.
6. Ability to import or export TeX, TROFF.
7. Heck why not just integrate Mathtype/WebEq or purchase said technology
from Design Science.
8. Fix how Frame handles tabs.
9. Revival of FrameLite project to compete against Word WP arena.
Just wanted to mention that the "Frame Wishlist" is still up www.techknowledgecorp.com/help (bottom of left column).
FrameMaker is an important tool in the technical publishing industry. Many authors use FrameMaker to write manuscripts, and publishers use it for composition purposes as well. What would be a great addition:
A suite of tracking and comment features (like those you find in word processors like Microsoft Word) you could use for writing and editing purposes.
Conditional text, the compare feature, comment markers, and change bars (the tools we currently cobble together for editing purposes in Frame) are clunky and difficult to use--a couple of tools specifically designed for editorial purposes would be a huge help.
1. drag and drop
2. multiple undo
3. easier customization (customize toolbars and/or palettes with icons that are associated with the already-existing FCODES)
6. navigate through tables with cursor
7. the ability to specify a graphic as a bullet
8. reasonable html import: not perfect, but something better than plain text
Another one: either variable zoom or addition of one or two more fixed ones. 50% is too small, 80% doesn't let you see the whole page.
Horace, there is varible zoom. Click the percent at the bottom of the window and look at the bottom. Plus, Esc z p does a "fit to page".
And you can type whatever percent you want into the boxes, so you can make the zoom levels 55, 73, 97 etc. or whatever you happen to want.
> 5. spell-as-you-go
I have to object to this request. This is one of the reaons Word chokes on long documents. I think FrameMaker's stability would take a severe hit if this feature was addedd.
Just my $0.02.
As an aside: I was running through a 600-page Word doc that had not been spell checked. It had a lot of product names and some script, and the like, all of which caused the spellcheck-as-you-go red squigglies to appear. When I got to about page 260, Word tossed up an error message that there were too many spelling errors and it could no longer display them on-the-fly. <Vbg> 512MB RAM 2GHz and 13GB free and few graphics in the doc (20MB-ish doc), in case you were wondering. </aside>
How about including a total page count variable that works in book files -- instead of having to fudge it!
[and there would be much rejoicing]
>>A suite of tracking and comment features (like those you find in word processors like Microsoft Word) you could use for writing and editing purposes. <<
...makes me shudder in fear. Occasionally I've been forced to work in scenarios where Word docs are routed to reviewers for online comments using revision tracking. The resulting files are such a mess that I often end up just printing them to a color printer and using the resulting hardcopy like a hand markup. Even that's inferior to an *actual* hand markup, because of the capricious way the revision tracking sometimes works. I'd run screaming from the room if FrameMaker ended up similar to Word in this regard.
JOOC, why don't you output to PDF and use its built-in redlining tools to collect comments?
Let's step back here a moment, shall we? If the standard for accepting new features in Frame is that they don't break Word, we may as well just pack up and go home. Jeez.
It's one thing to say do such-and-such like Word (I sure did). But, in so-saying, might we assume that FM would actually make that feature work before including it?
So, *assuming Frame's stability is maintained*, I'm all for:
- multiple undo
- drag and drop editing
- spell as you go
- more elegant TOCs for truly standalone docs (as opposed to the current "standalone" documents)
- ability to anchor anchored frames above current line (not just below)
- fix that font not available business
I consider these to be pretty basic for a 21st century word processor.
And while I'm asking for the moon, howabout a lower price :)
1.) Open Type Support
2.) Move most of the .ini stuff to an acceptable "Options" dialogue
3.) Upgrade the image import to read image information correctly (especially dpi x and y values) and stop FM from defaulting to 72dpi on a Windows machine
4.) Solve - or at least explain to an ignorant like me - the intriguing fact that I can create tagged PDF from unstructured, but not from structured FM files
5.) Please no features that impact performance
6.) - I know it has been discussed in depth before, but still - color separation under Windows
7.) A sidekick application to FM that only enables filling out templates and/or valid documents according to a given structured application and save them as PDF... no access to paragraph designer, etc. (to stop unmotivated creativity and get rid of Word!)
8.) No comment/track changes feature that allows clients to reveal (my!)stupid comments
"Quote me as saying I was misquoted."
1. ability to generate a list of variables in files or book
2. a table sorting function that does not break cross-references (would be invaluable for translated glossaries!!)
3. a doc comparison utility that was actually fully functional (e.g. can recognize added/deleted table rows/columns.
But really, why are we bothering - Adobe could give a rat's *** about what their users want or don't want, far as I can tell (and here I submit to you exhibit A - FrameMaker v7).
JUST TO MAKE IT KNOWN, THE NEXT VERSION OF FRAMEMAKER WILL HAVE MULTIPLE UNDO!!!
I got an official reply from Adobe that they received lots of complaints about version 7 not having multiple undo, since it was rumored that the version after 6 would certainly have it.
It's likely that this feature will appear in a point release.
Bill Dauphin (posting n° 19) enquired
> JOOC, why don't you output to PDF and use its built-in redlining tools to collect comments?
Well, my very simple answer is, because Adobe junked the "Business Tools" package. There's no way my various managers are going to shell out for full Acrobat licences just so they can make my life easier every few months.
E-mails to Adobe Benelux go unanswered, and though I managed to corner a real live AdobePerson (TM) at an Acrobat seminar early in June he has yet to send me any more info on the "new product" he said would be coming out for testing in September.
I agree, though, that I wouldn't want FrameMaker to start handling comments and markup the way Word does. I find the Acrobat approach a lot cleaner and easier to work with.
>>If the standard for accepting new features in Frame is that they don't break Word, we may as well just pack up and go home. <<
and Horace adds:
>>It's one thing to say do such-and-such like Word (I sure did). But, in so-saying, might we assume that FM would actually make that feature work before including it? <<
A couple points: I don't assume Word is the way it is because Microsoft hires a bunch of stoooopid programmers, nor do I assume Adobe's programmers will necessarily be significantly smarter. Rather (and full disclosure here: I'm not a programmer myself), I suspect that certain features that are memory intensive (e.g., multiple undo) or real-time processor intensive (e.g., on-the-fly spellchecking) *inherently* increase the risk of flakiness, regardless of how slickly they're programmed.
As for revision marking... well, the interface gives users lots of choices about *how* they make changes, and they use them all. Given the need to change one word within a sentence, one user will highlight and retype the entire sentence; another will highlight and retype the one word; another will backspace over the word and retype it; yet another will highlight, delete, and type.... While all these actions produce the same result, they all look like different actions to the machine... so it's not surprising they might get marked differently (and don't even get me started about change tracking in tables!). Programming in the smarts to recognize and reconcile these differences would use up a lot of the resources available to the application. So I think there's an *inherent* issue -- not just Microsoftian incompetence -- with that sort of revision tracking that makes it unsuitable as a replacement for redlining tools.
I've been a Word user since the very first (Mac) version was released, and I still use it as part of my current workflow. I think it's a FINE program... for what it does. It's just that FrameMaker does *different* things for me, and I'm reluctant to trade (or even risk trading) any of those things to get some of the niceties of Word.
Sorry if all this seems OT, but the on-topic point is this: All of *my* "wish-list" items are just that... wishes. FrameMaker works very well for me as-is, and I wouldn't willingly trade any of its current functionality and robustness for any of the things I've mentioned.
Of course, I recognize that others use the product differently, and YM most definitely MV! ;^)
Niels:<br /><br />>>There's no way my various managers are going to shell out for full Acrobat licences just so they can make my life easier every few months. <<<br /><br />Gotcha. But do they have FrameMaker? In my working scenario, nobody but the publications group (i.e., me and about 5 colleagues) has Frame, and it would be hard to make the case than anyone else needs it. Thus, redlining features in Frame would be pretty useless for us.<br /><br />Word is the corporate standard for general-purpose word processing, and it works well for that. OTOH, since routing documents (of all sorts, not just Frame publications) around for comment is a pretty widespread activity, in our case I think it *would* make sense to include Acrobat as part of the corporate-standard productivity toolset. Not that it's likely to happen, though. <g><br /><br />Which brings me around to a question: How many of you (or your organizations) are using Frame as a basic productivity tool, rather than as a specialized publishing tool? The answer might shed some light on some of the suggestions showing up here.<br /><br />-Bill
Please keep this thread focused on feature requests and move side conversations to a new thread.
OK, message received; I'll shut up now. 8^)
I think some interplay about *why* we want (or *don't* want, in some cases) these features IS "focused on feature requests," and is essential to giving meaningful feedback to Adobe... but mine is only one voice, and it's had its say now anyway, so I'll go sit down.
Another one I just hit: Make the index the default when you click on Help.
I would like a "delete all" button in the "Delete Formats From Catalog" dialog boxes. I delete all formats much more often than I delete isolated formats. Plus, there's plenty of room for another button in the dialog and I don't think program overhead would be affected too much by adding this minor feature.
You can delete hundreds in a few seconds by viewing the delete list and holding down Alt+e.
Thank you, thank you. I've used Frame a long time and never known that shortcut Alt+e.
I know I'm off the subject. Sorry.