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:Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:50:05 -0700
Several people suggested that I post a summary of the responses I
received about Framemaker and Quark. I received about 10 responses. The
majority said that both packages have their own strengths, but Framemaker
is better for manuals. Specifically, respondents said Framemaker is
strong in styles, cross-referencing, indexing, TOC creation, and text
flow. And, while Framemaker is not as strong in graphics, I was assured
it could handle screen shots and simple drawings. Quark is strong in
typography control and graphics.
Several people said their companies use Framemaker for manuals, but Quark
for marketing materials.
I also heard from one Ventura user, and one who suggested we produce the
documents in Word 6 (he has had success doing that).
Thank you all for your input. My manager submitted the request for
Framemaker yesterday, and it has been approved. Now all we have to do is
wait for the money. :) (We will continue to use Quark for our brochures,
ads, etc.)
