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:Re: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word From:iain -at- hairydog -dot- co -dot- uk (Iain Harrison) To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
> Word is a fine word processing tool. It is limited publishing tool.
>
> Frame is a powerful, if wonky, desktop publishing tool. It is a
> terrible
> word processor.
>
> I am a writer. I process words. I prefer Word.
> If you are still stuck in DTP land then you are probably stuck in Frame
> land,
I agree with you in principle, but I'd just like to put in a word for
Pagemaker. In my view, the ideal is to create the copy in Word, and where
whizzo layout is needed, to use Pagemaker to do that part.
> but let it be said load and clear:
>
> Technical writing is about writing. Technical writers should not be
> asked to do DTP.
I can only go so far in agreeing with you. We live in a very visual
world. If the documentation isn't nice to look at, people won't use it.
The design and layout makes a difference. If there's no-one else to do
the layout, better to do it yourself than leave it undone.
In addition, it is fun. I spend a good proportion of my time designing
web and intranet pages, and creating the graphics for them. All work and
no play makes Jack a dull writer.
--
Iain
iain -at- hairydog -dot- co -dot- uk
iainh -at- cix -dot- co -dot- uk
