BobS71 wrote:
Folks,
I really need some advice on a publishing tool decision my department needs to make.
We produce a combination of document styles that seem to cry out for different publishing tools. They are:
1. One-page Quick Start Guide: Contains installation/connection information for telephony/cable modems using mostly grahpics, very few words. Printed output, goes in box with product to end user.
2. 50- to 80-page User Guides: Contains installation, operation, setup, configuration information for same product. Lots of text and some associated graphics, illustrations, and screen captures. Not printed. Provided to end user on CD as PDF file, intended to be viewed on screen.
3. Firmware Manuals: Typically 500- to 1000-page documents. Contain tons of technical information, mostly text, but many associated items like system diagrams, flow diagrams, logic diagrams, MIBs, etc. Not an end user document.
We are currently using a page layout publishing tool (Quark) for producing the first two documents. A page layout program seems to be the proper publishing tool for these documents. Not sure if Frame would do as well, or better.
The long firmware manuals are being produced in an old proprietary Unix-based publishing tool which MUST be replaced for obvious reasons. These manuals are constantly being revised/added to, and also have to be produced in slightly different versions for different customers requiring the use of conditional text.
The Question is this:
We'd like to standardize on one publishing tool. Can we produce all three of these documents effectively in one tool?
I think the first two document types will work quite nicely in InDesign. Not sure if Frame would be as good, or better for these two. A concern is the huge firmware manuals. These are constantly in revision and changes/additions need to be made on a regular basis and quickly. My experience with using page-layout programs is that they are not terribly happy about having additional text added anywhere in the document without much extra effort to keep things where they belong. We need to be able to add a paragraph of text in the middle of these firmware manuals and have the rest of the entire document flow as necessary without much, if any, extra effort.
I'm thinking that the firmware manuals need to be done in Framemaker. I've used Frame before for long technical manuals, and it seems much more suited to that task than a page layout program. Then, of course, the question of continued Frame support by Adobe raises its ugly head.
Any and all ideas and experience on this issue would be appreciated. We need to make a decision and get on with the task.
Thanks,
Bob
I'm guessing that the UNIX tool you're using isn't FrameMaker, but perhaps Interleaf, because you'd have mentioned your experience with FrameMaker's abilities to do all three, plusses and minuses.
InDesign's long-document tools have been improved to the point where they rival those of FrameMaker, and most likely will continue to be improved.
FrameMaker's ability to lay out pages like a page-layout tool isn't well-known or much-discussed. It's capable, certainly suitable for short- and medium-length documents, though not as refined as a dedicated layout application like InDesign.
The issue of frequent ongoing revision opens the issue of who's going to do this work? If the changes are passed to technical writers who enter them, perhaps via Acrobat PDF comments, hard copy markup, or email or even Word notes, then either FM or InDesign would work. FrameMaker 9's advantage here is the ability to import PDF comments directly. PDF comments can be exported as editable text and imported into either FM or ID.
If the corrections would need to be done in the publishable documents themselves, by users not familiar with the use FM of ID, training for both would be needed.
You didn't mention a need for online help systems. Currently, this need would make FrameMaker the better choice because of its proven help-system creation with Robohelp or MIF2GO. Creating help by exporting content from InDesign as XML or tagged text, and applying a help-creation tool is not out of the question, but would need a lot of initial setup.
If you plan to reuse much content between these publications, currently FrameMaker's DITA (Darwin Information Typing Architecture) and text inset features are better-suited than InDesign. DITA takes a lot of training and setup, but text insets provide a relatively-simple approach to reuse. Text insets are independent FrameMaker files that are imported into FrameMaker documents that act as containers; when a text-inset source document is edited, it's appearance in the FrameMaker container file is updated to reflect the changes.
It's possible to combine InDesign and InCopy in a reusable-content workflow, where InCopy files are edited and their appearance in InDesign is updated to reflect the changes. This involves two applications - InDesign and InCopy - and users will need training in each.
IMO, without the help-system, heavy content reuse, or DITA requirements, either FrameMaker or InDesign would work for capable users for all these categories of publications.
Mark Twain said, "the frequent reports of of FrameMaker's demise are premature." <G> Should it happen, there will likely be some kind of support for migration to InDesign, either from Adobe, or from third-party providers. Currently, dtptools.com has a commercial conversion tool for FrameMaker's MIF - Maker Interchange Format - files to InDesign, and a free plug-in for FrameMaker that helps automate the conversion of FrameMaker files to MIF format. Line any cross-application conversions, common features that don't work exactly alike need special attention.
EDIT: Actually, it wasn't Twain, I was quoting, but Dov Isaacs' paraphrasing of Twain's quote./EDIT
HTH
Regards,
Peter
_______________________
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices