RE: Framemaker vs. Pagemaker

[Bill Burns <BillDB -at- intl -dot- com>]

Al writes:
	
> It is not fatally underpowered for
> many "real" tech pubs jobs -- we use it here to produce our entire
> multi-product multi-language manual sets, working with translators who
> give
> us RTF files we pour into our Pagemaker files/templates. We do have to
> reformat/refit all text & graphics page by page to make it fit, but that's
> always gonna be required, esp. when different laguages force different
> chapter word count/length anway. 
> 
This is where Frame really excels. Using various tools, we convert the Frame
files into RTF, which can then be translated as is or using a CAT like
Trados. When the translator is fnished, we run the files back into Frame,
and the formatting is reapplied. WIth some intelligent template design, you
can eliminate a lot of the reformatting that has to take place, with the
exception of manual page breaks and the like. The autolist features make
indexes and TOCs much simpler to maintain, and cross-references and other
autotext features can help reduce the translation word count.

At the same time, if you want the students to learn DTP, it makes sense to
stick with PageMaker. Frame is designed for people who have a pretty
standard template, who really don't want to have to set up and tweak the
page layout to fine degrees. It really isn't a page design tool.

If you want them to make books, use Frame. If you want them to lake
brochures, pamphlets, and newsletters, PageMaker is fine.

Bill  Burns - Eccentric Technology Consultant
INT'L.com Design & Development
billdb -at- intl -dot- com
"Being disintegrated makes me very angry."