Re: How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales

2005-12-06 Thread Rick Quatro 

Hi Hedley,

I try to design my plug-ins, scripts, etc. to appeal to the day-to-day users 
and to solve their problems. Easy to install probably wouldn't impress 
most users for two simple reasons. In many cases, the user doesn't have to 
install it; it is done by IT or a support person like you. Even if they do 
have to install it themselves, they suffer through the installation process 
once, and then enjoy the new productivity gains every day thereafter :-). 
It's similar to when I buy one of my kids a bicycle or a piece of furniture. 
They are not too concerned about the hassle I will go through to put the 
thing together.


There is merit to what you say, but it is unlikely that you will get a raft 
of independent plugin developers to standardize on installation, licensing, 
and help. And then, who's to say which plug-ins make it into the top-ten 
list?


Personally, I use the copy the [Program] folder into the fminit/Plugins 
folder inside of your FrameMaker folder and restart FrameMaker method for 
my plug-ins. With this method, you can keep all of the related files 
together in the [Program] folder and you don't have to fool with the 
maker.ini file. The downside is for plug-ins that use configuration files, 
because you dictate to the users where the files have to be, instead of 
allowing installation whereever is most convenient.


I am open to specific suggestions, especially if I can get a couple of mine 
in the top-ten :-).


Rick Quatro
Carmen Publishing
585-659-8267
www.frameexpert.com

Hackers, code-cutters, and devil-whoppers:

FrameMaker is indeed blessed with many wonderful plug-ins that vastly
increase its utility.  Most plug-ins came into being because their
developers had an itch to scratch, and marketed them as a useful utility
that a fellow sufferer might want.  That is, the assumption behind the
business model is that most FrameMaker users personally own their copy and
are completely responsible for maintaining and upgrading it, and are also
the purchasing decision makers.  The reality is that most FM users are
employees of companies who generally own multiple licences.

As someone whose job it is to support FrameMaker in a small team of ten
writers, installing and updating a reasonable set of productivity
enhancing plug-ins is a real pain.  I would rather be handcuffed and
hog-tied, then made to wriggle naked across red-hot broken glass than set
up a new writer with FM and a standard operating environment of plug-ins
and their configuration files.

Each developer has a different installation method, sometimes with an
installer (yay!) but often requiring files to be copied into specific
directories and maker.ini to be edited.  Each has different ideas about
where the plug-in should be placed and where its configuration files
should be.  Configuration files are sometimes just key-value *.ini files,
other times special FrameMaker files are required, and then some
initialisation information may even be on reference pages (I concede that
sometimes specialist FM files or ref. pages are necessary).

And don't even get me started on the byzantine licensing schemes.  Some
require you to submit the FM serial number from which a hash activation
key is calculated by the developer.  I really love collecting the serial
numbers from ten copies of FrameMaker every time we upgrade to a new
release, then emailing them to the developer, receiving the hash keys, and
visiting each installation to type in the activation key so the plug-in
will work. Others require you to edit an *.ini file and some have a
registration dialogue that pops up.  Yeah, I really love going around to
ten workstations and setting up eight plug-ins.

So you can see how the administration and maintenance of a reasonable
number of plug-ins, plus configuring them (don't forget that!) could be a
real pain and deter corporate customers.  So have you plug-in developers
collectively realised what a huge barrier faces corporate customers who
would love to use plug-ins but are deterred by the hassle?  A few of you
out there who are completely in denial will suggest that writers could
install the plug-ins themselves.  Yeah, right, and they will probably take
their turn at stacking the dishwasher in the kitchenette, not stealing
someone else's coffee, parking their cars in the spaces reserved for staff
and not in those reserved for customers which are much closer to the
office, completing their timesheets on time, and not creating cowboy para
formats.

Adobe has its Creativity Suite of applications.  Why can't we have our
FrameMaker Plug-in Productivity Package consisting of ten useful plug-ins
with a consistent installation and registration system that sys admins and
Tech. Comms support people can use to easily deploy as a standard
environment on all the workstations within their care?  Too hard?  Then
why don't you just licence your code to Adobe to clean up and integrate
cleanly into the menu structure and GUI?

Regards,
Hedley

--

RE: How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales

2005-12-06 Thread Kathy Bowman 
Hi Hedley,
Hear , hear! Add in the problems of using FrameMaker on a secure network where 
your configuration has to be approved by high powers that be, and the problems 
become almost insurmountable! So we make do with FrameMaker out of a box, and 
learn to live with it. When I hear someone gush that they like FrameMaker, I 
have to assume they are using a different product than I do. Perhaps it is the 
proliferation of plugins that has allowed Adobe to let FrameMaker lag behind 
what I expect of a developed product, but plugins aren't accessible to 
everyone. 
Please find a way to put some goodies in the box.
cheers
Kath 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; framers@lists.frameusers.com;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales


Hackers, code-cutters, and devil-whoppers:

FrameMaker is indeed blessed with many wonderful plug-ins that vastly 
increase its utility.  Most plug-ins came into being because their 
developers had an itch to scratch, and marketed them as a useful utility 
that a fellow sufferer might want.  That is, the assumption behind the 
business model is that most FrameMaker users personally own their copy and 
are completely responsible for maintaining and upgrading it, and are also 
the purchasing decision makers.  The reality is that most FM users are 
employees of companies who generally own multiple licences.

As someone whose job it is to support FrameMaker in a small team of ten 
writers, installing and updating a reasonable set of productivity 
enhancing plug-ins is a real pain.  I would rather be handcuffed and 
hog-tied, then made to wriggle naked across red-hot broken glass than set 
up a new writer with FM and a standard operating environment of plug-ins 
and their configuration files. 

Each developer has a different installation method, sometimes with an 
installer (yay!) but often requiring files to be copied into specific 
directories and maker.ini to be edited.  Each has different ideas about 
where the plug-in should be placed and where its configuration files 
should be.  Configuration files are sometimes just key-value *.ini files, 
other times special FrameMaker files are required, and then some 
initialisation information may even be on reference pages (I concede that 
sometimes specialist FM files or ref. pages are necessary).

And don't even get me started on the byzantine licensing schemes.  Some 
require you to submit the FM serial number from which a hash activation 
key is calculated by the developer.  I really love collecting the serial 
numbers from ten copies of FrameMaker every time we upgrade to a new 
release, then emailing them to the developer, receiving the hash keys, and 
visiting each installation to type in the activation key so the plug-in 
will work. Others require you to edit an *.ini file and some have a 
registration dialogue that pops up.  Yeah, I really love going around to 
ten workstations and setting up eight plug-ins.

So you can see how the administration and maintenance of a reasonable 
number of plug-ins, plus configuring them (don't forget that!) could be a 
real pain and deter corporate customers.  So have you plug-in developers 
collectively realised what a huge barrier faces corporate customers who 
would love to use plug-ins but are deterred by the hassle?  A few of you 
out there who are completely in denial will suggest that writers could 
install the plug-ins themselves.  Yeah, right, and they will probably take 
their turn at stacking the dishwasher in the kitchenette, not stealing 
someone else's coffee, parking their cars in the spaces reserved for staff 
and not in those reserved for customers which are much closer to the 
office, completing their timesheets on time, and not creating cowboy para 
formats.

Adobe has its Creativity Suite of applications.  Why can't we have our 
FrameMaker Plug-in Productivity Package consisting of ten useful plug-ins 
with a consistent installation and registration system that sys admins and 
Tech. Comms support people can use to easily deploy as a standard 
environment on all the workstations within their care?  Too hard?  Then 
why don't you just licence your code to Adobe to clean up and integrate 
cleanly into the menu structure and GUI?

Regards,
Hedley

--
Hedley Finger
Technical Communications Tools  Processes Specialist
MYOB Australia http://myob.com/au
P.O. box 371   Blackburn VIC 3130   Australia
12 Wesley Court   Tally Ho Business Park   East Burwood VIC 3151 Australia
mailto:hedleyDOTfingerATmyobDOTcom
Tel. +61 3 9222 9992 x 7421,   Mob. (cell) +61 412 461 558

© MYOB Technology Pty Ltd 2005
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/kathy.bowman

Re: How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales

2005-12-06 Thread Art Campbell 
Ghost the FM directory structure, Hedley.
One master install, then clones.

Art

On 12/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hackers, code-cutters, and devil-whoppers:
rant snipped


 Regards,
 Hedley


--
Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
   and a redheaded girl. -- Richard Thompson
 No disclaimers apply.
 DoD 358
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [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.

How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales

2005-12-06 Thread hedley.fin...@myob.com 
Hackers, code-cutters, and devil-whoppers:

FrameMaker is indeed blessed with many wonderful plug-ins that vastly 
increase its utility.  Most plug-ins came into being because their 
developers had an itch to scratch, and marketed them as a useful utility 
that a fellow sufferer might want.  That is, the assumption behind the 
business model is that most FrameMaker users personally own their copy and 
are completely responsible for maintaining and upgrading it, and are also 
the purchasing decision makers.  The reality is that most FM users are 
employees of companies who generally own multiple licences.

As someone whose job it is to support FrameMaker in a small team of ten 
writers, installing and updating a reasonable set of productivity 
enhancing plug-ins is a real pain.  I would rather be handcuffed and 
hog-tied, then made to wriggle naked across red-hot broken glass than set 
up a new writer with FM and a standard operating environment of plug-ins 
and their configuration files. 

Each developer has a different installation method, sometimes with an 
installer (yay!) but often requiring files to be copied into specific 
directories and maker.ini to be edited.  Each has different ideas about 
where the plug-in should be placed and where its configuration files 
should be.  Configuration files are sometimes just key-value *.ini files, 
other times special FrameMaker files are required, and then some 
initialisation information may even be on reference pages (I concede that 
sometimes specialist FM files or ref. pages are necessary).

And don't even get me started on the byzantine licensing schemes.  Some 
require you to submit the FM serial number from which a hash activation 
key is calculated by the developer.  I really love collecting the serial 
numbers from ten copies of FrameMaker every time we upgrade to a new 
release, then emailing them to the developer, receiving the hash keys, and 
visiting each installation to type in the activation key so the plug-in 
will work. Others require you to edit an *.ini file and some have a 
registration dialogue that pops up.  Yeah, I really love going around to 
ten workstations and setting up eight plug-ins.

So you can see how the administration and maintenance of a reasonable 
number of plug-ins, plus configuring them (don't forget that!) could be a 
real pain and deter corporate customers.  So have you plug-in developers 
collectively realised what a huge barrier faces corporate customers who 
would love to use plug-ins but are deterred by the hassle?  A few of you 
out there who are completely in denial will suggest that writers could 
install the plug-ins themselves.  Yeah, right, and they will probably take 
their turn at stacking the dishwasher in the kitchenette, not stealing 
someone else's coffee, parking their cars in the spaces reserved for staff 
and not in those reserved for customers which are much closer to the 
office, completing their timesheets on time, and not creating cowboy para 
formats.

Adobe has its Creativity Suite of applications.  Why can't we have our 
FrameMaker Plug-in Productivity Package consisting of ten useful plug-ins 
with a consistent installation and registration system that sys admins and 
Tech. Comms support people can use to easily deploy as a standard 
environment on all the workstations within their care?  Too hard?  Then 
why don't you just licence your code to Adobe to clean up and integrate 
cleanly into the menu structure and GUI?

Regards,
Hedley

--
Hedley Finger
Technical Communications Tools & Processes Specialist
MYOB Australia 
P.O. box 371   Blackburn VIC 3130   Australia
12 Wesley Court   Tally Ho Business Park   East Burwood VIC 3151 Australia

Tel. +61 3 9222 9992 x 7421,   Mob. (cell) +61 412 461 558

? MYOB Technology Pty Ltd 2005

How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales

2005-12-06 Thread Scott Abel 
Hedley:

You are a hoot :)  And, your points are well taken. Content 
management tool vendros are designing solutions that address your 
concerns about plug-ins and third-party tools. While Adobe may be slow 
to adopt the functionality plug-ins provide, CM vendors are not. In 
fact, several vendors, including SiberLogic, are marketing their 
products to FrameMaker users by making the case that pug-ins and third 
party applications go away when you marry FrameMaker and a content 
management system.

  Another reason to move away from the old paradigm and toward content 
management.

You can learn more about SiberLogic's SiberSafe (and the lack of 
plug-ins) from Rob Hanna's "Ask the Expert" article on FrameMaker and 
SiberSafe located here: http://www.siberlogic.com/framemaker/.


==
The Content Wrangler
Scott Abel, Content Management Strategist
3421 Crystal Lakes Ct., Sarasota FL 34235
abelsp at netdirect.net  941-359-3416
www.thecontentwrangler.com


DITA 2006, March 23-25, 2006 - Raleigh, NC
http://www.travelthepath.com/dita2006.html

On Dec 5, 2005, at 11:00 PM, hedley.finger at myob.com wrote:

> As someone whose job it is to support FrameMaker in a small team of ten
> writers, installing and updating a reasonable set of productivity
> enhancing plug-ins is a real pain.  I would rather be handcuffed and
> hog-tied, then made to wriggle naked across red-hot broken glass than 
> set
> up a new writer with FM and a standard operating environment of 
> plug-ins
> and their configuration files.

How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales [Did I mention on-line help?]

2005-12-06 Thread hedley.fin...@myob.com 
Addendum:

And if all plug-in developers could agree where to stash their HTML Help 
*.chm files, then the on-line help for all the plug-ins would come up as 
one apparently seamless help with a merged TOC and Index.  [Dream on, 
Hedley.]

Roo guards,
Hedley

--
Hedley Finger
Technical Communications Tools & Processes Specialist
MYOB Australia 
P.O. box 371   Blackburn VIC 3130   Australia
12 Wesley Court   Tally Ho Business Park   East Burwood VIC 3151 Australia

Tel. +61 3 9222 9992 x 7421,   Mob. (cell) +61 412 461 558

? MYOB Technology Pty Ltd 2005

How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales

2005-12-06 Thread Kathy Bowman 
Hi Hedley,
Hear , hear! Add in the problems of using FrameMaker on a secure network where 
your configuration has to be approved by high powers that be, and the problems 
become almost insurmountable! So we make do with FrameMaker out of a box, and 
learn to live with it. When I hear someone gush that they like FrameMaker, I 
have to assume they are using a different product than I do. Perhaps it is the 
proliferation of plugins that has allowed Adobe to let FrameMaker lag behind 
what I expect of a developed product, but plugins aren't accessible to 
everyone. 
Please find a way to put some goodies in the box.
cheers
Kath 

-Original Message-
From: hedley.finger at myob.com [mailto:hedley.fin...@myob.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:31 PM
To: framers at omsys.com; framers at lists.frameusers.com;
framemaker-dita at groups.yahoo.com
Subject: How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales


Hackers, code-cutters, and devil-whoppers:

FrameMaker is indeed blessed with many wonderful plug-ins that vastly 
increase its utility.  Most plug-ins came into being because their 
developers had an itch to scratch, and marketed them as a useful utility 
that a fellow sufferer might want.  That is, the assumption behind the 
business model is that most FrameMaker users personally own their copy and 
are completely responsible for maintaining and upgrading it, and are also 
the purchasing decision makers.  The reality is that most FM users are 
employees of companies who generally own multiple licences.

As someone whose job it is to support FrameMaker in a small team of ten 
writers, installing and updating a reasonable set of productivity 
enhancing plug-ins is a real pain.  I would rather be handcuffed and 
hog-tied, then made to wriggle naked across red-hot broken glass than set 
up a new writer with FM and a standard operating environment of plug-ins 
and their configuration files. 

Each developer has a different installation method, sometimes with an 
installer (yay!) but often requiring files to be copied into specific 
directories and maker.ini to be edited.  Each has different ideas about 
where the plug-in should be placed and where its configuration files 
should be.  Configuration files are sometimes just key-value *.ini files, 
other times special FrameMaker files are required, and then some 
initialisation information may even be on reference pages (I concede that 
sometimes specialist FM files or ref. pages are necessary).

And don't even get me started on the byzantine licensing schemes.  Some 
require you to submit the FM serial number from which a hash activation 
key is calculated by the developer.  I really love collecting the serial 
numbers from ten copies of FrameMaker every time we upgrade to a new 
release, then emailing them to the developer, receiving the hash keys, and 
visiting each installation to type in the activation key so the plug-in 
will work. Others require you to edit an *.ini file and some have a 
registration dialogue that pops up.  Yeah, I really love going around to 
ten workstations and setting up eight plug-ins.

So you can see how the administration and maintenance of a reasonable 
number of plug-ins, plus configuring them (don't forget that!) could be a 
real pain and deter corporate customers.  So have you plug-in developers 
collectively realised what a huge barrier faces corporate customers who 
would love to use plug-ins but are deterred by the hassle?  A few of you 
out there who are completely in denial will suggest that writers could 
install the plug-ins themselves.  Yeah, right, and they will probably take 
their turn at stacking the dishwasher in the kitchenette, not stealing 
someone else's coffee, parking their cars in the spaces reserved for staff 
and not in those reserved for customers which are much closer to the 
office, completing their timesheets on time, and not creating cowboy para 
formats.

Adobe has its Creativity Suite of applications.  Why can't we have our 
FrameMaker Plug-in Productivity Package consisting of ten useful plug-ins 
with a consistent installation and registration system that sys admins and 
Tech. Comms support people can use to easily deploy as a standard 
environment on all the workstations within their care?  Too hard?  Then 
why don't you just licence your code to Adobe to clean up and integrate 
cleanly into the menu structure and GUI?

Regards,
Hedley

--
Hedley Finger
Technical Communications Tools & Processes Specialist
MYOB Australia <http://myob.com/au>
P.O. box 371   Blackburn VIC 3130   Australia
12 Wesley Court   Tally Ho Business Park   East Burwood VIC 3151 Australia
<mailto:hedleyDOTfingerATmyobDOTcom>
Tel. +61 3 9222 9992 x 7421,   Mob. (cell) +61 412 461 558

? MYOB Technology Pty Ltd 2005
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as Kathy.Bowman at saabsystems.com.au.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
fra

How FM plug-in developers are losing corporate sales

2005-12-06 Thread Art Campbell 
Ghost the FM directory structure, Hedley.
One master install, then clones.

Art

On 12/5/05, hedley.finger at myob.com  wrote:
> Hackers, code-cutters, and devil-whoppers:


>
> Regards,
> Hedley
>

--
Art Campbell art.campbell at 
gmail.com
  "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
   and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
 No disclaimers apply.
 DoD 358