RE: Madcap and FrameMaker?
Definitely two different animals. And not direct competitors. They only compete in that they can be made to produce similar things. Frame is a print-output based tool for creating highly interconnected technical documents. It is excellent for this purpose, very scalable and reliable. It can also be made to produce online help, with certain issues and difficulties. It was not designed to do this so you need a third party tool to transform your books to help. Flare is almost precisely the opposite. It is a true help authoring tool, designed to create highly interconnected online help systems. It is excellent for this purpose, very scalable and reliable. However it can also be made to produce print based documents, with certain issues and difficulties. It wasn't designed to do this but does include tools to transform your html files to pdfs. The latest version of Flare has improved dramatically on this print output process. Flare has a learning curve, as do all tools. It's pretty similar in operation to other help authoring tools, so if you've used XDK or Robohelp you'll get to grips with it pretty quickly. One drawback is it uses Visual Studio as a platform, so suffers from the slowness inherent in that system on large projects. Flare's background comes from the RoboHelp development team who split off to form Madcap. Like Robohelp it's prime focus has always been producing online help systems. There is no formatting text for print output You set up css style sheets for your online help styles and apply those directly to individual topic help files. Print output from Flare used to use Word or Framemaker as intermediate stages as it couldn't address a PDF engine directly. This has been changed with the latest version where you now set up page templates within Flare and output directly. No more need for Word or Frame. As I've said before, if your main output is print, stick to Frame. I'm not sure it can be bettered (apart from getting rid of long standing bugs). It's a tool that doesn't get in your way of writing and producing content. If you main output is online help, single sourcing to print and managing the flow of localized versions, I'd try Flare. And as for bullets... They are pretty easy in Flare. Apply the bullet to your list and apply your bullet style. I sound like and advert for Flare don't I. For me it's a case of the right tool for the right job. Online help - use Flare. Print output - use Frame. Pick your main output and write for that, then use transformations to get other forms of output if required. If my deliverables were mostly to print, I'd have no hesitation of using Framemaker and then probably the excellent MIF2GO to produce online versions. Rob __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ___ 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.
Madcap and FrameMaker?
Definitely two different animals. And not direct competitors. They only compete in that they can be made to produce similar things. Frame is a print-output based tool for creating highly interconnected technical documents. It is excellent for this purpose, very scalable and reliable. It can also be made to produce online help, with certain issues and difficulties. It was not designed to do this so you need a third party tool to transform your books to help. Flare is almost precisely the opposite. It is a true help authoring tool, designed to create highly interconnected online help systems. It is excellent for this purpose, very scalable and reliable. However it can also be made to produce print based documents, with certain issues and difficulties. It wasn't designed to do this but does include tools to transform your html files to pdfs. The latest version of Flare has improved dramatically on this print output process. Flare has a learning curve, as do all tools. It's pretty similar in operation to other help authoring tools, so if you've used XDK or Robohelp you'll get to grips with it pretty quickly. One drawback is it uses Visual Studio as a platform, so suffers from the slowness inherent in that system on large projects. Flare's background comes from the RoboHelp development team who split off to form Madcap. Like Robohelp it's prime focus has always been producing online help systems. There is no formatting text for print output You set up css style sheets for your online help styles and apply those directly to individual topic help files. Print output from Flare used to use Word or Framemaker as intermediate stages as it couldn't address a PDF engine directly. This has been changed with the latest version where you now set up page templates within Flare and output directly. No more need for Word or Frame. As I've said before, if your main output is print, stick to Frame. I'm not sure it can be bettered (apart from getting rid of long standing bugs). It's a tool that doesn't get in your way of writing and producing content. If you main output is online help, single sourcing to print and managing the flow of localized versions, I'd try Flare. And as for bullets... They are pretty easy in Flare. Apply the bullet to your list and apply your bullet style. I sound like and advert for Flare don't I. For me it's a case of the right tool for the right job. Online help - use Flare. Print output - use Frame. Pick your main output and write for that, then use transformations to get other forms of output if required. If my deliverables were mostly to print, I'd have no hesitation of using Framemaker and then probably the excellent MIF2GO to produce online versions. Rob __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Madcap and FrameMaker?
Lately I read some postings on MadCap products. I'm not familiair with those, just wondering how MadCap compares to FrameMaker. Is it competive with Framemaker (Adobe Tech Com Suite) or is it, can it be, additional in a tech doc authoring and publishing workflow. Vriendelijke groet, Wim Hooghwinkel Adobe Certified Expert (ACE) in FrameMaker iDTP International DTP and Documentation Consultancy tel. +31652036811 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.idtp.eu ___ 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.
Madcap and FrameMaker?
Lately I read some postings on MadCap products. I'm not familiair with those, just wondering how MadCap compares to FrameMaker. Is it competive with Framemaker (Adobe Tech Com Suite) or is it, can it be, additional in a tech doc authoring and publishing workflow. Vriendelijke groet, Wim Hooghwinkel Adobe Certified Expert (ACE) in FrameMaker iDTP International DTP and Documentation Consultancy tel. +31652036811 info at idtp.eu www.idtp.eu
Madcap and FrameMaker?
They are two entirely different animals. The marketing hoopla from MadCap would have you believe that Flare is a direct competitor to FrameMaker. This is not true. MadCap products are transformational tools, primarily. Their entire cause for being was centered around transforming formatted text intended for print, into online help files, generally through transformation into XHTML files. What is telling is that the primary authoring tools they cite for documentation are Word and FrameMaker. I've used Flare, and I find it very difficult to manipulate. Whether that's because I'm very comfortable using a fully functional and validating text editor for making XHTML or because I feel it's easier to hand code XHTML instead of using MadCap's GUI, is up for interpretation. I do know that what took me 20 minutes to change (a bullet list) in MadCap only took me 30 seconds using Oxygen text editor. Scott At 9:15 AM +0100 10/30/08, Wim Hooghwinkel - idtp wrote: >Lately I read some postings on MadCap products. I'm not familiair with >those, just wondering how MadCap compares to FrameMaker. Is it competive >with Framemaker (Adobe Tech Com Suite) or is it, can it be, additional in a >tech doc authoring and publishing workflow. >
Madcap and FrameMaker?
Madcap and FrameMaker?
Flare's main advantage is it's topic-based single sourcing capabilities, like AuthorIt and maybe structured Frame. If you could benefit from a real single-sourcing tool than it's something to consider, but from what I hear there is a learning curve. These are my impression from what I've heard about them. I have not actually used Flare or structured Frame. -- Regards, Shmuel Wolfson >> Lately I read some postings on MadCap products. I'm not familiair with >> those, just wondering how MadCap compares to FrameMaker. Is it competive >> with Framemaker (Adobe Tech Com Suite) or is it, can it be, additional in a >> tech doc authoring and publishing workflow. >> >> > ___ > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as shmuelw1 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/shmuelw1%40gmail.com > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. > >
