RE: Frame vs Arbortext
Steve Rickaby wrote: If the [fairly imminent?] upcoming version of FrameMaker actually turns out to be FrameMaker 8 and not FrameMaker 7.2-and-a-bit, it seems likely that the developments will lean heavily in the direction of XML support, and this will further erode what differen[ce] currently exists. --- About a month and a half ago at the WritersUA conference during my template session one of the Adobe staff mentioned the next release is a full release, not a dot release. Not sure if that was a slip or totally intentional, but it was nice to hear it. A lot of places are beginning to mention Frame 8 as something that Adobe is working on. It's been mentioned on numerous sites including Scott's Content Wrangler and others. Looks like there will still be real options for users in the future when it comes to tool selection :) Bernard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:19 AM ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Frame vs Arbortext
Steve Rickaby wrote: If the [fairly imminent?] upcoming version of FrameMaker actually turns out to be FrameMaker 8 and not FrameMaker 7.2-and-a-bit, it seems likely that the developments will lean heavily in the direction of XML support, and this will further erode what differen[ce] currently exists. --- About a month and a half ago at the WritersUA conference during my template session one of the Adobe staff mentioned the next release is a full release, not a dot release. Not sure if that was a slip or totally intentional, but it was nice to hear it. A lot of places are beginning to mention Frame 8 as something that Adobe is working on. It's been mentioned on numerous sites including Scott's Content Wrangler and others. Looks like there will still be real options for users in the future when it comes to tool selection :) Bernard -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter.com at lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:19 AM
RE: Frame vs Arbortext
At 11:46 -0700 26/4/07, Matt Sullivan wrote: 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. If the [fairly imminent?] upcoming version of FrameMaker actually turns out to be FrameMaker 8 and not FrameMaker 7.2-and-a-bit, it seems likely that the developments will lean heavily in the direction of XML support, and this will further erode what different currently exists. -- Steve ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame vs Arbortext
Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/27/2007 05:19:00 AM: At 11:46 -0700 26/4/07, Matt Sullivan wrote: 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. And the most annoying thing is that working 'natively' with XML is a red herring. Because the only thing that has changed is that when your workflow is to include FrameMaker functionality and strengths until delivering xml you name the file FileName.fm and if you want to always roundtrip you save the file as FileName.xml. The only difference is FrameMaker automatically assumes Save-as when the original file opened was FileName.xml. Big Deal. If the [fairly imminent?] upcoming version of FrameMaker actually turns out to be FrameMaker 8 and not FrameMaker 7.2-and-a-bit, it seems likely that the developments will lean heavily in the direction of XML support, and this will further erode what different currently exists. And those differences are only in approach. I could only roll my eyes and turn up the sarcasm as an AT rep explained to me the difficulties of EDDs and of not working natively in XML. I was dismissive as possible when they couldn't find a comeback to my question about how does the complexity and non-nativeness of EDDs compare to the development of FOSIs and AT display and print engines. Pathetic really. Eric L. Dunn Senior Technical Writer ___ This e-mail communication (and any attachment/s) may contain confidential or privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity named above and to others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by reply e-mail, and delete the e-mail subsequently. Please note that in order to protect the security of our information systems an AntiSPAM solution is in use and will browse through incoming emails. Thank you. _ Ce message (ainsi que le(s) fichier/s), transmis par courriel, peut contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou protégés et est destiné à l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute autre personne est par les présentes avisée qu?il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, le distribuer ou le reproduire. Si vous l?avez reçu par inadvertance, veuillez nous en aviser et détruire ce message. Veuillez prendre note qu'une solution antipollupostage (AntiSPAM) est utilisée afin d'assurer la sécurité de nos systems d'information et qu'elle furètera les courriels entrant. Merci. _ ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Frame vs Arbortext
At 11:46 -0700 26/4/07, Matt Sullivan wrote: >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. If the [fairly imminent?] upcoming version of FrameMaker actually turns out to be FrameMaker 8 and not FrameMaker 7.2-and-a-bit, it seems likely that the developments will lean heavily in the direction of XML support, and this will further erode what different currently exists. -- Steve
Frame vs Arbortext
Steve Rickaby wrote on 04/27/2007 05:19:00 AM: > At 11:46 -0700 26/4/07, Matt Sullivan wrote: > >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. And the most annoying thing is that working 'natively' with XML is a red herring. Because the only thing that has changed is that when your workflow is to include FrameMaker functionality and strengths until delivering xml you name the file FileName.fm and if you want to always roundtrip you save the file as FileName.xml. The only difference is FrameMaker automatically assumes "Save-as" when the original file opened was FileName.xml. Big Deal. > If the [fairly imminent?] upcoming version of FrameMaker actually > turns out to be FrameMaker 8 and not FrameMaker 7.2-and-a-bit, it > seems likely that the developments will lean heavily in the > direction of XML support, and this will further erode what different > currently exists. And those differences are only in approach. I could only roll my eyes and turn up the sarcasm as an AT rep explained to me the "difficulties" of EDDs and of not working "natively" in XML. I was dismissive as possible when they couldn't find a comeback to my question about how does the complexity and "non-nativeness" of EDDs compare to the development of FOSIs and AT display and print engines. Pathetic really. Eric L. Dunn Senior Technical Writer ___ This e-mail communication (and any attachment/s) may contain confidential or privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity named above and to others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by reply e-mail, and delete the e-mail subsequently. Please note that in order to protect the security of our information systems an AntiSPAM solution is in use and will browse through incoming emails. Thank you. _ Ce message (ainsi que le(s) fichier/s), transmis par courriel, peut contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou prot?g?s et est destin? ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute autre personne est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, le distribuer ou le reproduire. Si vous l?avez re?u par inadvertance, veuillez nous en aviser et d?truire ce message. Veuillez prendre note qu'une solution antipollupostage (AntiSPAM) est utilis?e afin d'assurer la s?curit? de nos systems d'information et qu'elle fur?tera les courriels entrant. Merci. _
Re: Frame vs Arbortext
At 20:17 -0400 25/4/07, Diane Gaskill wrote: Hello Frameratti, I like that... but shouldn't it be 'Framerati'? You might be thinking of 'Frameretti', i.e. little Framers ;-) 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 know only what I have read on this list, although it's a subject I keep an eye on. My suggestion would be to carefully calculate total cost of ownership of both options. From what I've heard, almost everything is a mega-cost-plus option in Arbortext. Someone who'd set up their own system at their own expenses a couple of years ago was posting here, and I got the impression that although you can get up and running with Epic at around the same cost as FrameMaker, just to *print* anything, for example, was a few thousand dollars more. These tools seem to be priced for major corporates, not for single writers or small authoring teams. -- Steve ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Frame vs Arbortext
We use both and having been involved with standing up both Frame and Arbortext processes, Steve's impressions are (in my opinion) reasonably accurate. We run both systems (20+ writers and developers) because two of our customers require it (we are tech manual vendors to a couple of big clients.) But note that they (the big customers) do the real 'heavy-lifting', in that, they developed and manage all of the schemas, dtds and templates, then provide them to vendors like us (there are several). We produce and deliver the books to them. But, even with the templates and schemas provided - running Arbortext still costs substantially more, in terms of both actual software costs and staffing 'know how' to build books with it. No offense folks, but you can still find and train more Frame folks faster (and cheaper) than Arbortext help. Arbortext seems stronger for 'industrial strength' operations (large numbers of big complex books, database content repositories, multiple delivery requirements - XML, SGML, HTML, custom hard copy). Having been through the start up of both capabilities - unless you have huge requirements with a serious long-term view from management, the Frame process still provides robust capabilities to manage fairly substantive technical manual development / delivery with much lower costs. The only other caveats that I would add from my experience is that we are not currently running a database content repository for the Frame customer, while we are for the Arbortext folks. The other issue would be the cost and complexity of building / modifying the templates, schemas or DTDs you intend to use. Hope this helped. Regards, Bob Williams On 4/26/07, Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 20:17 -0400 25/4/07, Diane Gaskill wrote: Hello Frameratti, I like that... but shouldn't it be 'Framerati'? You might be thinking of 'Frameretti', i.e. little Framers ;-) 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 know only what I have read on this list, although it's a subject I keep an eye on. My suggestion would be to carefully calculate total cost of ownership of both options. From what I've heard, almost everything is a mega-cost-plus option in Arbortext. Someone who'd set up their own system at their own expenses a couple of years ago was posting here, and I got the impression that although you can get up and running with Epic at around the same cost as FrameMaker, just to *print* anything, for example, was a few thousand dollars more. These tools seem to be priced for major corporates, not for single writers or small authoring teams. -- Steve ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/bob.williams.bristol.ri%40gmail.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Frame vs Arbortext
In the 1990s I used Epic at Thomson Corporation, a publisher, and I currently use it at UGS Corp., a manufacturing software company. You are correct when you say that Epic is better for major corporations. The cost per seat is much higher than Framemaker and even slight changes to DTD, CMS, or output systems within such corporations usually result in correcting XML code several times a year, at least in my experience. I wish we were using Frame, even though that wouldn't solve this problem. Although many writers who previously only used Word (ugh) but can't stand Epic are complaining at UGS, the company won't go to Frame because of the large number of projects and global writing groups here. It looks like they're leaning toward XMetal Pro as an editor. I interviewed at ArborText in Ann Arbor, MI, some time ago and it's a bizarre company. The Epic UI hasn't changed since the beginning and often results in typos because it is essentially non-WYSIWYG. While XML is supposed to separate coding and writing, Epic does the opposite. I'm comfortable with it because I've used it for so long, but many writers write in a text editor and then paste into Epic and format it as a second step, or refuse to use it altogether. __ From: Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Diane Gaskill [EMAIL PROTECTED], framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Frame vs Arbortext Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:17:56 +0100 At 20:17 -0400 25/4/07, Diane Gaskill wrote: Hello Frameratti, I like that... but shouldn't it be 'Framerati'? You might be thinking of 'Frameretti', i.e. little Framers ;-) 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 know only what I have read on this list, although it's a subject I keep an eye on. My suggestion would be to carefully calculate total cost of ownership of both options. From what I've heard, almost everything is a mega-cost-plus option in Arbortext. Someone who'd set up their own system at their own expenses a couple of years ago was posting here, and I got the impression that although you can get up and running with Epic at around the same cost as FrameMaker, just to *print* anything, for example, was a few thousand dollars more. These tools seem to be priced for major corporates, not for single writers or small authoring teams. -- Steve ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotm ail.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame vs Arbortext
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 cost/time/effort) 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 management integration. BTW, anyone know if ArborText has any sort of DITA implementation? -Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training, Inc. An Adobe Authorized Training Center www.grafixtraining.com 888 882-2819 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Houser Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:03 AM To: framers@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 support. 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. -Alan 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. Best, Diane -- Alan Houser, President Group Wellesley, Inc. 412-363-3481 www.groupwellesley.com ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/matt%40grafixtraining.co m Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame vs Arbortext
http://www.ptc.com/products/arbortext/dita/index.htm Also check this: http://www.ptc.com/appserver/wcms/forms/index.jsp?im_dbkey=40125icg_dbkey=482 However, that will need you to log in and/or create an account. Hope that helps, Bernard PS. If any AT users are out there who also know one or two other XML tools please contact me. I have a bit of work that I can pass around to those who are intersted. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:46 PM To: 'Alan Houser'; 'Framers List' Subject: RE: Frame vs Arbortext 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 cost/time/effort) 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 management integration. BTW, anyone know if ArborText has any sort of DITA implementation? -Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training, Inc. An Adobe Authorized Training Center www.grafixtraining.com 888 882-2819 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Houser Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:03 AM To: framers@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 support. 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. -Alan 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. Best, Diane -- Alan Houser, President Group Wellesley, Inc. 412-363-3481 www.groupwellesley.com ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/matt%40grafixtraining.co m Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank
RE: Frame vs Arbortext
Be careful when reading documents that are created by a vendor to sell his products. They are often slanted. I recently saw a presentation from PTC in which several slides contained information that was not accurate. FM was presented as an equal to MS word and I am sure we all know better than that. FM was also presented as though every book must contain a completely different set of independent files. Everyone on this list knows that you can point to a single boilerplate file from any number of books. We also know that FM can implement XML and DITA. The presentation I saw completely ignored that. Caveat Emptor. Diane = -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bernard Aschwanden Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:58 PM To: 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Framers List' Subject: RE: Frame vs Arbortext http://www.ptc.com/products/arbortext/dita/index.htm Also check this: http://www.ptc.com/appserver/wcms/forms/index.jsp?im_dbkey=40125icg_dbkey=4 82 However, that will need you to log in and/or create an account. Hope that helps, Bernard PS. If any AT users are out there who also know one or two other XML tools please contact me. I have a bit of work that I can pass around to those who are intersted. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:46 PM To: 'Alan Houser'; 'Framers List' Subject: RE: Frame vs Arbortext 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 cost/time/effort) 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 management integration. BTW, anyone know if ArborText has any sort of DITA implementation? -Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training, Inc. An Adobe Authorized Training Center www.grafixtraining.com 888 882-2819 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Houser Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:03 AM To: framers@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 support. 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. -Alan 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
Frame vs Arbortext
At 20:17 -0400 25/4/07, Diane Gaskill wrote: >Hello Frameratti, I like that... but shouldn't it be 'Framerati'? You might be thinking of 'Frameretti', i.e. little Framers ;-) >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 know only what I have read on this list, although it's a subject I keep an eye on. My suggestion would be to carefully calculate total cost of ownership of both options. From what I've heard, almost everything is a mega-cost-plus option in Arbortext. Someone who'd set up their own system at their own expenses a couple of years ago was posting here, and I got the impression that although you can get up and running with Epic at around the same cost as FrameMaker, just to *print* anything, for example, was a few thousand dollars more. These tools seem to be priced for major corporates, not for single writers or small authoring teams. -- Steve
Frame vs Arbortext
We use both and having been involved with standing up both Frame and Arbortext processes, Steve's impressions are (in my opinion) reasonably accurate. We run both systems (20+ writers and developers) because two of our customers require it (we are tech manual vendors to a couple of big clients.) But note that they (the big customers) do the real 'heavy-lifting', in that, they developed and manage all of the schemas, dtds and templates, then provide them to vendors like us (there are several). We produce and deliver the books to them. But, even with the templates and schemas provided - running Arbortext still costs substantially more, in terms of both actual software costs and staffing 'know how' to build books with it. No offense folks, but you can still find and train more Frame folks faster (and cheaper) than Arbortext help. Arbortext seems stronger for 'industrial strength' operations (large numbers of big complex books, database content repositories, multiple delivery requirements - XML, SGML, HTML, custom hard copy). Having been through the start up of both capabilities - unless you have huge requirements with a serious long-term view from management, the Frame process still provides robust capabilities to manage fairly substantive technical manual development / delivery with much lower costs. The only other caveats that I would add from my experience is that we are not currently running a database content repository for the Frame customer, while we are for the Arbortext folks. The other issue would be the cost and complexity of building / modifying the templates, schemas or DTDs you intend to use. Hope this helped. Regards, Bob Williams On 4/26/07, Steve Rickaby wrote: > > At 20:17 -0400 25/4/07, Diane Gaskill wrote: > > >Hello Frameratti, > > I like that... but shouldn't it be 'Framerati'? You might be thinking of > 'Frameretti', i.e. little Framers ;-) > > >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 know only what I have read on this list, although it's a subject I keep > an eye on. My suggestion would be to carefully calculate total cost of > ownership of both options. From what I've heard, almost everything is a > mega-cost-plus option in Arbortext. Someone who'd set up their own system at > their own expenses a couple of years ago was posting here, and I got the > impression that although you can get up and running with Epic at around the > same cost as FrameMaker, just to *print* anything, for example, was a few > thousand dollars more. > > These tools seem to be priced for major corporates, not for single writers > or small authoring teams. > > -- > Steve > ___ > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as > bob.williams.bristol.ri at gmail.com. > > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com > or visit > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/bob.williams.bristol.ri%40gmail.com > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. >
Frame vs Arbortext
In the 1990s I used Epic at Thomson Corporation, a publisher, and I currently use it at UGS Corp., a manufacturing software company. You are correct when you say that Epic is better for major corporations. The cost per seat is much higher than Framemaker and even slight changes to DTD, CMS, or output systems within such corporations usually result in correcting XML code several times a year, at least in my experience. I wish we were using Frame, even though that wouldn't solve this problem. Although many writers who previously only used Word (ugh) but can't stand Epic are complaining at UGS, the company won't go to Frame because of the large number of projects and global writing groups here. It looks like they're leaning toward XMetal Pro as an editor. I interviewed at ArborText in Ann Arbor, MI, some time ago and it's a bizarre company. The Epic UI hasn't changed since the beginning and often results in typos because it is essentially non-WYSIWYG. While XML is supposed to separate coding and writing, Epic does the opposite. I'm comfortable with it because I've used it for so long, but many writers write in a text editor and then paste into Epic and format it as a second step, or refuse to use it altogether. __ From: Steve Rickaby To: Diane Gaskill , framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Frame vs Arbortext Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:17:56 +0100 >At 20:17 -0400 25/4/07, Diane Gaskill wrote: > > >Hello Frameratti, > >I like that... but shouldn't it be 'Framerati'? You might be thinking of 'Frameretti', i.e. little Framers ;-) > > >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 know only what I have read on this list, although it's a subject I keep an eye on. My suggestion would be to carefully calculate total cost of ownership of both options. From what I've heard, almost everything is a mega-cost-plus option in Arbortext. Someone who'd set up their own system at their own expenses a couple of years ago was posting here, and I got the impression that although you can get up and running with Epic at around the same cost as FrameMaker, just to *print* anything, for example, was a few thousand dollars more. > >These tools seem to be priced for major corporates, not for single writers or small authoring teams. > >-- >Steve >___ > > >You are currently subscribed to Framers as spolloc1 at hotmail.com. > >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com >or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotm ail.com > >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
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 support. 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. -Alan 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. > > Best, > > Diane > -- Alan Houser, President Group Wellesley, Inc. 412-363-3481 www.groupwellesley.com
Frame vs Arbortext
http://www.ptc.com/products/arbortext/dita/index.htm Also check this: http://www.ptc.com/appserver/wcms/forms/index.jsp?im_dbkey=40125_dbkey=482 However, that will need you to log in and/or create an account. Hope that helps, Bernard PS. If any AT users are out there who also know one or two other XML tools please contact me. I have a bit of work that I can pass around to those who are intersted. -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter.com at lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:46 PM To: 'Alan Houser'; 'Framers List' Subject: RE: Frame vs Arbortext 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 cost/time/effort) 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 management integration. BTW, anyone know if ArborText has any sort of DITA implementation? -Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training, Inc. An Adobe Authorized Training Center www.grafixtraining.com 888 882-2819 -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining@lists.frameusers.com [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 support. 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. -Alan 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. > > Best, > > Diane > -- Alan Houser, President Group Wellesley, Inc. 412-363-3481 www.groupwellesley.com ___ 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 or visit http://lists.fram
Frame vs Arbortext
Be careful when reading documents that are created by a vendor to sell his products. They are often slanted. I recently saw a presentation from PTC in which several slides contained information that was not accurate. FM was presented as an equal to MS word and I am sure we all know better than that. FM was also presented as though every book must contain a completely different set of independent files. Everyone on this list knows that you can point to a single boilerplate file from any number of books. We also know that FM can implement XML and DITA. The presentation I saw completely ignored that. Caveat Emptor. Diane = -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+dgcaller=earthlink@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+dgcaller=earthlink.net at lists.frameusers.com]On Behalf Of Bernard Aschwanden Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:58 PM To: 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Framers List' Subject: RE: Frame vs Arbortext http://www.ptc.com/products/arbortext/dita/index.htm Also check this: http://www.ptc.com/appserver/wcms/forms/index.jsp?im_dbkey=40125_dbkey=4 82 However, that will need you to log in and/or create an account. Hope that helps, Bernard PS. If any AT users are out there who also know one or two other XML tools please contact me. I have a bit of work that I can pass around to those who are intersted. -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter.com at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:46 PM To: 'Alan Houser'; 'Framers List' Subject: RE: Frame vs Arbortext 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 cost/time/effort) 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 management integration. BTW, anyone know if ArborText has any sort of DITA implementation? -Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training, Inc. An Adobe Authorized Training Center www.grafixtraining.com 888 882-2819 -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining@lists.frameusers.com [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 support. 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. -Alan 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
Frame vs Arbortext
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. Best, Diane
