TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Framemaker vs. Pagemaker From:figmo -at- rahul -dot- net (Lynn Gold) To:sseveny -at- petvalu -dot- com Date:Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Suzette Seveny wrote:
>
>dbdoucette -at- bandl -dot- com wrote:
>> "Giordano, Connie" wrote:
>>
>> > Is Framemaker really that commonly used? Perhaps in well-established
>> > companies with larger than lone tech writer departments. >snip<
>>
>> We used FrameMaker when I was a lone writer. We use FM now that our tech
>> writer
>> "department" numbers 2. Is this common? I don't know. But it belies your
>> assumption that F< is limited to companies with large tech writer
>departments.
>
>I'll second that. I am a lone techwriter (never have worked in a techwriter
>department). We use framemaker for the stability, cross-reference, pdf, and
>all that other good stuff. We reuse chapters, and the book feature is just
>great for us.
Likewise for me. In fact, I've NEVER used PageMaker on the job; it's
always been either FrameMaker, Interleaf, Ventura Publisher, a markup
language like TeX or troff, or sometimes MS Word with one of the others.
