Re: Word instead of FrameMaker

[Tan Joo Khim <jktan -at- CTHOST -dot- CT -dot- CREAF -dot- COM>]

Thanks, Melanie and several other tech writers, for your helpful answers.

However, I would like to rephrase my earlier question slightly: Pls advise
on the pros and cons of using Word 97 instead of FrameMaker 5.0 for printed
documentation.

Microsoft's new Word97 apparently has a lot of improved features in the
areas of cross-referencing, master documents, etc. But I've yet to see the
real thing.

- jookhim +

----------
> From: Flanders, Melanie <mflanders -at- DYNASTY -dot- COM>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Word instead of FrameMaker
> Date: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 11:20 AM
>
> And now for the cons...
>
> 1. If you need TOC and indexing capabilities for your document, Word
can't begin
> to handle the task. FrameMaker allows you a lot of flexibility in
designing
> formats and generates them with little manual intervention. The cross
references
> are accurate. With Word, it's a crapshoot, and you can spend HOURS
manually
> correcting incorrectly generated page numbers. Word does not allow much
> flexibility in creating TOCs. We have had several users have squirrelly
thing
> occur when they were trying to create a TOC and we couldn't find a way to
> troubleshoot the problem.
>
> 2. If you have large documents, Word has difficulty handling the size.
> FrameMaker's book file capability allows you to generate large documents
easily
> and quickly. Other timing and space issues can also depend on the
hardware you
> have.
>
> 3. If you use a lot of tables in your doc, Frame allows you to define
your own
> table formats. Editing and manipulating tables in FM is a breeze; in
Word, they
> are a nightmare.
>
> 4. If you use structured writing methodologies (such as Information
Mapping), it
> is much easier and faster to create the templates for your documents in
> FrameMaker. You can also create tags that automatically produce lines or
text
> such as "continued on next page."
>
> 5. You can use FrameMaker source files to create HTML and Acrobat files
if you
> need multiple delivery mechanisms. We convert files to .rtf for our Word
users.
> You often lose the graphics, but the rest of the format, including
tables, stays
> intact. Word users can modify the .rtf file. (We send .rtfs to our
offices in
> Europe. They also have the issue of the page size being different.)
>
>
> Quite frankly, I can't imagine any "pros" for using Word to create
printed
> documentation. The only thing that I've found Word can do that FM doesn't
is a
> mail merge. I use Word on those occasions when I am sending out form
letters.
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: Word instead of FrameMaker
> Author:  Tan Joo Khim <jktan -at- CTHOST -dot- CT -dot- CREAF -dot- COM>
> Sender: "Technical Writers
> List; for al at ~INTERNET
> Date:    1/14/97 8:23 PM
>
>
>
> Pls advise on the pros and cons of using Word instead of FrameMaker for
> printed documentation.
>
> >From our point of view, the immediate benefit of using Word instead of
> FrameMaker are:
> 1. Currently, there are no Asian versions of FM.  Standardizing on Word
>     would mean that worldwide loc offices can all work on the original
> documents that HQ
>     has created.
>
> 2. Word is also a good platform for generating WinHelp and HTML.
> Eventually, we
>     probably should standardize on HTML as this will mean one consistent
> interface for
>     the user instead of three different online solutions: WinHelp,
Acrobat
> and HTML.
>
> tks... merci... gracias...
> - jookhim +

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html