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. Interleaf From:Chris Welch-Hutchings <chutchings -at- NORDSON -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:11:57 EST
I'm looking for information on Framemaker vs. Interleaf as a production
tool. I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has migrated from
Interleaf to Framemaker, or vice-versa, and what you like or don't like
about your new tool.
My current employer uses Interleaf, but the writers don't have access to
it. We use Word to produce draft docs, which are then passed to a team of
Interleaf formatters. For revisions, the writers mark-up existing Interleaf
docs and submit these for formatting.
I have extensive experience with Framemaker, and I can't get over how
cumbersome this Word/Interleaf process is. Most of our docs end up going
through the revision/formatting process several times before release, and
since our formatters usually can't get to our docs for several days after
they are submitted, our release dates are very often negatively affected.
I am absolutely convinced that it is far more efficient to produce docs
directly in Framemaker, but no one here has ever used it and my pleas are
falling on deaf ears. Can anyone point me to supporting data or share their
experiences?
Thanks,
Chris
The following was included as an attachement. Please use UUDECODE
to retrieve it. The original file name was 'ATTRIBS.BND'.