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:Framemaker vs. Quark From:Melinda Carr <melindac -at- CAPSOFT -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 14 Mar 1996 12:27:26 -0700
I'm new to this list, so please excuse me if this topic has already been
discussed.
I work in a small publications department (two writer/editors and one
desktop publisher) in a software company. Currently, we write in Word 6.0
for Windows and then transfer all the files to QuarkXPress (on the
Mac) for final layout and graphics. This means that once the files are in
Quark, my manager and I cannot make textual changes without kicking the
desktop publisher off his computer.
We have heard some good things about Framemaker and are thinking of
making the switch. However, for us the cost is significant, so we will
need to justify the switch to upper management.
I am interested in hearing from those of you who have used both
Framemaker and Quark. Which would you recommend? What are the benefits of
each? (The desktop publisher also produces lots of marketing materials.
Should we keep Quark for that purpose even if we switch for our manuals?)
