Re: Quark

Subject: Re: Quark
From: James Mathewson <math0038 -at- GOLD -dot- TC -dot- UMN -dot- EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 08:02:10 -0500

On Sat, 6 May 1995, Heilan Yvette Grimes wrote:

> >QuarkXpress is really very much an advertising designer's or colour
> >publisher's tool. All my graphic deisgner friends use & love it - its great
> >for colour seps, etc - but then they don't notice the lack of automatic
> >TOCs, indexing, etc (and as one of them said, 'it's great for less than
> >three pages'). If you were using Ventura, and thinking of Framemaker, Quark
> >is probably not for you. It's certainly not something I'd think of for
> >technical publication.

> Quark is THE program in magazine and book publishing. The vast majority of
> magazines you see on newsstands, and books you see in bookstores, are done
> using Quark (Time, Newsweek, People, Details, USA Today, the list is
> endless). It is superb for long documents.

> TOC and Indexing does not come standard with Quark, but there are several
> extensions that do these functions.

> I've taught people to use Quark and to use PageMaker. Quark is much easier to
> learn than PageMaker. It works more logically and allows for more precise
> alignment and text adjustment.

> --Yvette

I couldn't have said it (and did not say it) better myself.

james {:>l3

Previous by Author: Re: Re[2]: Re. Quark vs. PageMaker
Next by Author: Re: Re[2]: @ sign
Previous by Thread: Re: Quark
Next by Thread: tables --> HTML

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads