Recommended software for breaking in...

[Tom Johnson <johnsont -at- STARCUTTER -dot- COM>]

Kathleen made a couple interesting comments.
-----Original Message-----
Kathleen Frost <frostdoc -at- EARTHLINK -dot- NET> wrote:

>My comments to Ed Gregory's list:
>
>1.      "Word - Not because it is good, but because it is a corporate
>standard across the country."
>(( Word is very good because it was designed to work with Windows, not
>redesigned to TRY and work with Windows.  Being able to Pint, Click, and
>Drag and drop, are real time savers.  As for being a standard, I would say
>it was in our area around Atlanta.  I have worked for major companies,
>mostly Fortune 500, some Fortune 1000, from Coca-Cola to Delta Airlines.  I
>only knew one company that used something besides MS Word.))

<Tom Johnson>
I could be wrong here. If I am, I hope someone will enlighten me. I was
using Word on a Mac before I ever heard of Windows. I don't know if Word for
DOS preceded the Mac version, but I do believe Word was "redesigned" to work
with Windows.

In my opinion, Word has gotten harder to use instead of easier. It isn't
necessarily because it was ported to Windows, but rather feature glut.  All
the autocorrecting stuff drives me bonkers. I like to write and not be
second-guessed by a paperclip that doesn't recognize unusual names or words.
It is especially painful when trying to create our online help that has to
be in text format for our compiler. Word tries to fix my efforts to
structure the file a certain way so it will compile correctly. I'd use
Notepad but sometimes the files are too big.

As far as the original question, Word is a good program to know. Lots of
people use it and it can get the job done. Just remember to turn off the
annoying features you don't need.

>
>2.      Pagemaker, Quark, or Framemaker
>((I have been in tech writing for 14+ years and never worked anywhere that
>used these applications.  I don't know what they might be able to do that
MS
>Word can't do but I have been producing all kinds of documentation from
>technical documents to end user operations in Word without any problems. --
>Personal comment = I did work at one place that was getting rid of
>Framemaker.  The previous tech writer didn't know exactly how to use it and
>did a very poor job on the documents.  Graphics, headers, and footers were
>so separated and so deeply buried that they couldn't be corrected and kept
>popping up at inopportune times (we'd print three times and they would only
>show up in one of them, usually the one we were supposed to send out for
>review). That company converted to Word because it easier to hire people
who
>knew it, easier to revise, and it was what most of their clients had so
they
>could move documents back and forth easily.>>

<Tom Johnson>
I get the feeling here you are dismissing PageMaker, Quark and FrameMaker
because you've worked with people who have never had a need to use them.
Kind of like, "I've gotten by so far without them, they must not be any
good." At any rate, it seems rather narrow-minded.  Someone who is
unfamiliar with Frame can really mess things up, they can do the same in
Word. Frame is a great tool and I've done things with it that I haven't
been able to do in Word. By the way, I've been using Word for 14 years.
There are also things I can do in Word that I can't do in Frame or
PageMaker. It all comes down to tool selection and knowing as many tools as
makes sense for you. Sometimes I'll be working on a project that has
particular demands and I might try three or four programs before I decide
which one I'll use. Those projects are rare (where I don't know off the top
of my head which one to use), but it is amazing how much easier it can be in
one program versus another.

My suggestion to anyone who hasn't worked with Frame is to give it a try,
you might have a very nice surprise in store! The same can be said for any
number of new tools.

On the other hand, there comes a time when you have to say "no" to upgrades
(and new stuff) for the sake of productivity. We're under such pressure to
upgrade this and upgrade this that we spend so much time upgrading that it
can be hard to get stuff done. I recently had the "honor" of receiving a new
computer for work. In spite of a faster processor, more memory, and Windows
NT, I have yet to see a productivity increase. I still don't have everything
working after three weeks. Some in-house utilities that I need to use, don't
run very well under NT. Basically, I feel rather crippled (OS challenged) by
a new computer. I'm almost tempted to ask for my old one back just to make
life simpler. Well-l-l-l maybe not. I have avoided those nasty general
protection faults that I used to get so often.

Tom Johnson - who is not particularly fond of Windows NT    N(ot ye)T
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=