8 Replies Latest reply: Mar 4, 2010 10:41 AM by peter at knowhowpro RSS

    Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?

    BobS71 Community Member

      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

        • 1. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
          Jeff_Coatsworth CommunityMVP

          I would definitely do #2 & #3 in FM - #1 could also be done in FM, but for something that small & graphical, ID is probably the way to go.

          • 2. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
            peter at knowhowpro Community Member

            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

            • 3. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
              peter at knowhowpro Community Member

              Jeff_Coatsworth wrote:

               

              I would definitely do #2 & #3 in FM - #1 could also be done in FM, but for something that small & graphical, ID is probably the way to go.

              Hi, Jeff:

               

              For best content reuse, using two applications whose files aren't 100% convertible could be problematic.

               

              Regards,

               

              Peter

              _______________________

              Peter Gold

              KnowHow ProServices

              • 4. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
                Art Campbell Community Member

                In general, I'd second Jeff's opinion that Frame is the way to go, but having done telephony and cable modem work myself, unless your industrial design team gets creative to the point of totally redesigning each box each time it's released, the Quick Reference card would work well in Frame also. The general layout, installation procedures and organization are unlikely to change very much from product to product.

                 

                In addition, I'd look at Frame because, although you don't mention content reuse, using Frame across all three docs would let you use one set of graphics and (probably) basic instructions and product info / boilerplate across all three. Keeps things simple and consistent.

                 

                As far as continued Frame support goes, what, exactly, are you concerned about? The product has a total facelift and update in the last rev, and I suspect work is underway on FM 10. So, other than rumors that are already older than the last two releases... what information leads you to think FM may go away?

                • 5. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
                  peter at knowhowpro Community Member

                  Art Campbell wrote:

                   

                  In general, I'd second Jeff's opinion that Frame is the way to go, but having done telephony and cable modem work myself, unless your industrial design team gets creative to the point of totally redesigning each box each time it's released, the Quick Reference card would work well in Frame also. The general layout, installation procedures and organization are unlikely to change very much from product to product.

                   

                  In addition, I'd look at Frame because, although you don't mention content reuse, using Frame across all three docs would let you use one set of graphics and (probably) basic instructions and product info / boilerplate across all three. Keeps things simple and consistent.

                   

                  As far as continued Frame support goes, what, exactly, are you concerned about? The product has a total facelift and update in the last rev, and I suspect work is underway on FM 10. So, other than rumors that are already older than the last two releases... what information leads you to think FM may go away?

                  Hi, Art:

                   

                  FrameMaker and InDesign can both import the same source graphic in almost any current file format. However, if the same callouts and other annotations that accompany the graphics that one creates in FrameMaker or InDesign need to be used in multiple instances of the graphics, then it's a good idea to stick with one application rather than two.

                   

                  Regarding annotations and such, InDesign's layers offer an advantage over FrameMaker, because the same unannotated graphic can be reused in multiple instances with different annotations or different annotation arrangements maintained on layers. FrameMaker can simulate layers to some extent, depending on the specific needs.

                   

                   

                  Regards,

                   

                  Peter

                  _______________________

                  Peter Gold

                  KnowHow ProServices

                  • 6. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
                    Art Campbell Community Member

                    Peter,

                     

                    I specified graphics and text reuse in multiple documents, not just graphics.

                     

                    Art

                    • 7. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
                      BobS71 Community Member

                      Peter, Art, & Jeff,

                       

                      Thank you very much for your in-depth analysis of my publishing situation!  This will be all be very helpful.

                       

                      To answer some of your questions:

                       

                      1. Changes/updates to these documents will all be made by the technical writers, who will receive the source materials for the changes/updates from the SMEs in various manners (some via separate documents, some via SME interviews, some via markups, etc.).

                       

                      2. There is very little re-use of material between the three manual types.  Nearly nothing from the big firmware manuals is used in the other two.  The one-page Quick Install Guides have so little text that re-use of material from the User Guides is practically none.  A single-sourcing/CM publishing tool (which I've used before) would not seem be of much value here.

                       

                      3. No need for online help at this point.  Rather, we provide User Guides in PDF format (to be viewed on screen) which make heavy use of hyperlinks for navigation.  Customers can download these files from our corporate web site.

                       

                      4. My concern for Framemaker's longevity stems mainly from the usual rumors (I know... duh!) plus my own observation that Frame does not seem to be prevalently featured on Adobe's web site, nor has it been the recipient of much promotional activity by Adobe.

                       

                      One more question on Framemaker:  My use of Framemaker in the past has been all for printed documents.  I've never used it to create docs intended primarily for online viewing.  Is Frame good with hyperlinks and other online viewing necessities, particularly when output to a PDF file for distribution and NOT output to a typical help file format?

                       

                      PS)  Interesting to note that I am only getting responses to my post via the Framemaker forum.  I put up nearly the exact same post on the InDesign forum and have not gotten one reply via that forum yet.  I wonder if I should read something into that?  Hah!

                       

                      Again,  thanks all for your experience and insight to this problem.

                       

                      Bob

                      • 8. Re: Three Different Documents - Framemaker, InDesign, or Both?
                        peter at knowhowpro Community Member

                        BobS71 wrote:

                         

                        Peter, Art, & Jeff,

                         

                        Thank you very much for your in-depth analysis of my publishing situation!  This will be all be very helpful.

                         

                        To answer some of your questions:

                         

                        1. Changes/updates to these documents will all be made by the technical writers, who will receive the source materials for the changes/updates from the SMEs in various manners (some via separate documents, some via SME interviews, some via markups, etc.).

                         

                        2. There is very little re-use of material between the three manual types.  Nearly nothing from the big firmware manuals is used in the other two.  The one-page Quick Install Guides have so little text that re-use of material from the User Guides is practically none.  A single-sourcing/CM publishing tool (which I've used before) would not seem be of much value here.

                         

                        3. No need for online help at this point.  Rather, we provide User Guides in PDF format (to be viewed on screen) which make heavy use of hyperlinks for navigation.  Customers can download these files from our corporate web site.

                         

                        4. My concern for Framemaker's longevity stems mainly from the usual rumors (I know... duh!) plus my own observation that Frame does not seem to be prevalently featured on Adobe's web site, nor has it been the recipient of much promotional activity by Adobe.

                         

                        One more question on Framemaker:  My use of Framemaker in the past has been all for printed documents.  I've never used it to create docs intended primarily for online viewing.  Is Frame good with hyperlinks and other online viewing necessities, particularly when output to a PDF file for distribution and NOT output to a typical help file format?

                         

                        PS)  Interesting to note that I am only getting responses to my post via the Framemaker forum.  I put up nearly the exact same post on the InDesign forum and have not gotten one reply via that forum yet.  I wonder if I should read something into that?  Hah!

                         

                        Again,  thanks all for your experience and insight to this problem.

                         

                        Bob

                        Hi, Bob:

                         

                        In no particular order:

                         

                        I wouldn't read anything into which forum drew responses. I'm on both FrameMaker and InDesign fora and receive messages via email, not digest, though I respond via forum, not email.

                         

                        I saw both headings of your posts, and chose to respond to the one that had had a response already, rather than the one that had none; it's my way to see what others have said, before thinking about jumping in hoping to appear smarter than I am<G>. Also, the one with the reply was dated later (more recent) so it was higher on my list.

                         

                        Lots of folks feel that FrameMaker isn't promoted enough by Adobe. I suppose if you deducted Adobe's FrameMaker net profit from overall corporate net, the numbers would make FrameMaker look like a small contributor. However small it is, discontinuing an application that's the backbone of so many large installations at influential major corporations who publish technical materials for use in a great range of government-regulated industries - pharmaceuticals, automotive, aerospace, etc - without offering a replacement tool and smooth migration support would cost far more in damage to the Adobe brand, than whatever beans might be saved by the cutback. Disabling the ability of customers to continue smoothly in their normal ways by killing or tainting a product they depend upon, is costly and hard to overcome. Toyota is an example currently, and Intel's shipping and covering-up a defective Pentium chip some years ago, is another.

                         

                        The simple worst-case scenario is that FrameMaker would not be developed further, but serious remaining bugs might be fixed, and licenses would continue to be sold. What's missing from such a last-in-line FrameMaker that would prevent most of the work being published now from continuing to go on, and new work could be created as well.

                         

                        FrameMaker's cross-references can hyperlink across and within files in PDFs; so can generated TOCs, indexes, and other generated files. SWF files can be embedded in FrameMaker files. You can create a lot of what you'd want in an interactive PDF from within FrameMaker.

                         

                        The TWs will have the usual issues with training SMEs to either format nothing, or learn to use standard styles in their Word or whatever text-creation tools, so as not to add the overhead of undoing mis-formatted material to the TW's workload.

                         

                         

                        HTH

                         

                        Regards,

                         

                        Peter

                        _______________________

                        Peter Gold

                        KnowHow ProServices