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 v. Pagemaker From:Melissa Fisher <mfisher -at- AUTOMATEDLOGIC -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:51:11 -0400
We are now discontinuing use of Pagemaker for most of our technical
documents in favor of FrameMaker. Mostly, we are wanting to taking
advantage of FrameMaker's conditional text and variables, since we have a
large library of documents that are very similar to each other. Some other
reasons we have (okay, well, reasons that *I* have) for making the switch
are:
- It's much easier to use paragraph styles in FrameMaker. It's much easier
to achieve a consistent look across FrameMaker documents than Pagemaker.
I've always found it kludgy and tricky to import styles in Pagemaker.
- Making minor changes to text in a Pagemaker document can lead to hours of
reformatting pages.
- We had a problem with multiple story windows in Pagemaker. Some folks
didn't understand how the little windowshades worked, so we had documents
with as many as 29 different stories in them - a nightmare.
- FrameMaker has very slick autonumbering and cross-referencing features.
- FrameMaker has much better built-in drawing tools (which really doesn't
say a whole lot, unfortunately).
These are my opinions only, I don't work for Adobe, your mileage may vary,
disclaimer, etc.
Melissa Fisher
Automated Logic Corporation
mfisher -at- automatedlogic -dot- com
