Hi, all.

A related sidebar: Ever use FrameMaker and put the "Interleaf" in a
document and then spell-check it in FrameMaker?

Try it! :)


Karen L. Zorn wrote:
> Cost. Last I heard Interleaf was thousands per seat, while FM is much, much
> less.
> Karen L. Zorn
> Zorn Technologies, Inc.
> Mesa, AZ
> -----Original Message-----
> From: framers-bounces+k.zorn=zorntech.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+k.zorn=zorntech.com at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf
> Of Sims, Joseph
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:21 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save Frame
> The company I work for uses Frame, Interleaf and Word in three separate
> offices. (PC version) Management has requested that we create a uniform
> style for documentation starting now. They're expecting us to share content
> and presumably document templates. In my opinion, all of us should use
> Frame, but the Interleaf users have dug in their heels. It's become a
> non-constructive us vs. them conflict. As a result, I need to come up with a
> list of business reasons why Interleaf is not the correct choice for the
> company. 
> I know of several from prior discussions on the list, but need more.
> 1. IL to PDF conversions can be less straightforward than Frame to PDF
> conversions. Does IL generate bookmarks? 2. Translation memory tools don't
> support IL, dramatically increasing costs.
> 3. Interleaf/Quicksilver/Broadvision corp. is far more likely to end up in
> Chapter 11 than Adobe. 
> 4. Frame is more widely used and offers greater compatibility with the rest
> of the publishing world. 
> Does anyone have any additional words of wisdom? Particularly ones that can
> have costs assigned to them?
> Thanks, 
> Joe
> D. Joseph Sims
> Technical Documentation
> The Gleason Works
> 1000 University Ave.
> Rochester, NY 14692-2970

Reply via email to