To add to Alan's comments, I've had numerous aerospace clients who choose
Arbortext for editing, but Frame for output.
The cost of output from Arbortext (developing XSL-FO) can be much greater
than the whole FM install and dev, and not terribly flexible.
In the pre-Frame 7.2 world, XML was interpreted both in and out of
Framemaker and stored in FM Binary. This is why folks would edit content
directly using AT (integrity of XML), but draw into FM for output (less
These days, Frame can work directly with the XML, and storing as .fm is
strictly optional. IMO, this undercuts much of AT's sales pitch.
Other considerations might include both current and potential content
BTW, anyone know if ArborText has any sort of DITA implementation?
GRAFIX Training, Inc.
An Adobe Authorized Training Center
[mailto:framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameusers.com] On
Behalf Of Alan Houser
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:03 AM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame vs Arbortext
Your experience is quite common. Arbortext's sales team is really,
really good. They seem to know how to find the right people in an
organization (not the tech pubs group or even the tech pubs manager) and
sell into the workgroup or enterprise level. On the other hand, Adobe's
FrameMaker sales team is, well...what sales team? On the other hand,
FrameMaker continues to have very strong support within tech pubs
organizations. The outcome of the Arbortext vs. FrameMaker decision is
often decided (rightly or wrongly) by the strength of this grass-roots
There are several layers of issues here. One is the "XML" or "not XML"
decision. If your business requirements warrant a migration to XML, then
Arbortext is an option. Otherwise, it is not. Structured FrameMaker is
another option for XML publishing. But I would make the "XML" or "not
XML" decision first, independent of the tools choice.
Probably the single biggest appeal of structured FrameMaker in an XML
environment is the ability to generate PDFs from the desktop, using a
(relatively) simple mechanism for defining publishing templates. One can
argue whether a FrameMaker EDD is "simple", but I prefer it over the XML
alternative (XSL-FO) in the majority of cases, especially if PDF is your
primary output format.
Diane Gaskill wrote:
> Hello Frameratti,
> Remember the old days when we had debates and comparisons between the
dreaded Word and Frame? Well, now it seems that the new competitor is
Arbortext. I had my manager convinced to switch from Word to FM, even got
the ok to build the templates (done), when along comes a VP in one of our
offshore offices who thinks using Arbortext is better and convinces my
manager to have us look at it too.
> I did some digging and found a really old (1999) comparison on Shlomo's
website. Nice, but both tools have changed considerably since then and the
comparison is no longer valid. Sooo, I am wondering if anyone on the list
knows of a more recent comparison of the two tools. Not that I want to go
to Arbortext, mind you, but I need to check for the boss.
> BTW, the company that now owns and markets ArbotText did not invent it
(sounds familiar, huh). They came here and made a presentation. Turns out
that the GUI is _not_ actually WYSIWYG and they told us that we have to
print it to PDF to see what the page really looks like. If that is true, we
might be better off with Word (if that is possible). Reminds me of the
olden days of man pages and troff/nroff on Unix.
> Thanks in advance for any help.
Alan Houser, President
Group Wellesley, Inc.
You are currently subscribed to Framers as matt at grafixtraining.com.
Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.