One point that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the ability to customize
the tools.  

FrameMaker has a robust SDK, plus FrameScript, dzBatcher, FrameAC, and a
wide variety of available plug-ins/scripts to perform a myriad of tasks.
While many similar tools may exist for Ileaf/Quicksilver, a comparison
of costs will be very revealing.

And if customization is needed that is not already available from
third-parties, what will it cost to program the desired capability?
Compare a scripted solution (e.g. FrameScript), a DLL plug-in for Frame
(C programming via the FDK) and Ileaf/Quicksilver using their Lisp-based
programming language.

On  Wednesday, January 18, 2006 04:21 PM, Sims, Joseph wrote:

| 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

- Lester 
 Lester C. Smalley               Email: lsmalley AT infocon DOT com     
 Information Consultants, Inc.   Phone: 302-239-2942 FAX: 302-239-1712  
 Yorklyn, DE  19736                Web: 

Reply via email to