Re: Framemaker

[Kent Newton <KentN -at- METRIX-INC -dot- COM>]

aplato -at- aol -dot- com (A Plato) wrote:

>I don't get it.  Hundreds of companies use Framemaker to develop all
their
>documentation  -- and Framemaker SUCKS.  I used it for a few months and
>found it one of the most non-intuitive, backwards applications in the
>world.

>Please, some of you Framemaker lovers tell me why the technical writer
>world loves this tool.  I do most of my work in Word or Pagemaker which
>are both much more intuitive tools.  Word usually covers anything simple
>and straightfoward I need to do.

>I have wanted to apply for jobs, yet they always seem to want someone
with
>Frame experience.  It pisses me off because Frame is such a worthless
tool
>-- and I feel locked out of some of these jobs.

I don't care for Framemaker much, either, but our company switched from
Word 6.0 to Framemaker 5.0.   I agree that Framemaker is not intuitive.
 I much prefer Word: it is easier to use, and it can easily be configured
to meet your needs.  It's more forgiving than Frame, too.

However, having said that, I must add that Frame has many features that
Word (or Pagemaker) cannot match.  Specifically, Framemaker seems ideal
for long documents.  If I have a simple document of no longer than 40 or
50 pages, I would probably still use Word.  But I maintain a 1,000+ page
manual, and Frame does work better for me.  True, the features are not as
intuitive or simple as those in Word, but they are more powerful.

We did have another incentive for moving to Frame, though: our printshop
requested that we move to Framemaker or Pagemaker so we could supply them
with electronic files instead of hardcopies.  After trying both, we opted
for Framemaker for our technical documentation (although our marketing
department with with Pagemaker for their output).

Kent Newton
Senior Technical Writer
Metrix, Inc.
kentn -at- metrix-inc -dot- com