![]() Therefore, FrameMaker is apparently good for almost all types of publications including XML, SGML, PDF, and HTML. Now, with the Technical Communication Suite an author can marry the. ![]() Conversely, RoboHelps strength has been on creating online help with a secondary focus on generating printed documentation. I can be used in concert with a CMS and XML exported to a database. FrameMaker is well-regarded as 'industrial-strength' software for print-oriented documentation and manuals with secondary focus on producing online help. Although probably somewhat true, FrameMaker actually does it all. Whereas, FrameMaker is used more for the printed page. As a publishing package I just prefer Adobe products for technical writing and publication.įrom other blogs, my understanding is that ArborText is used more for XML and content publication. I use Frame 12 at work and also have the Adobe Technical Communications Suite. Not sure, as others state, what the cost comparison is for both. If I had to guess, there is probably far more Frame users as a result. There is probably far more training and information available for FrameMaker than ArborText. Fortunately, I was using an XML Content Management System before I went to Structured FrameMaker, so moving over was fairly easy. I've been using FrameMaker for both structured and unstructured documentation for about 10 years. There is a good Tech Comm Tools publication out there that gives a lot of info about the conversion tables and how their used. More current versions of FrameMaker are totally convertible to DITA and XML. And remember, that in the end, it's not the tool that matters, it's the change process and the people who will be doing the work who make the difference between a successful project and a failure.Īlthough I cannot speak much for ArborText, I can speak for FrameMaker and Adobe suites. In the end, you have to choose the tool that best fits your requirements, not someone else's. You're better off figuring out your requirements and talking to customers who have used both (and those who have switched - both vendors will supply a list of folks who have gone from one to the other). I'll stop here because this is the wrong forum for that discussion. (Error7103's comment above is a prime example most 'papers' were written by competitors or operations that didn't have a relationship with Arbortext so wrote it off without direct, current facts.) In fact, the older Scriptorium paper has a lot of wrong information the more recent Scriptorium paper had input from one of the resellers. ![]() MadCap Software releases major new updates for MadCap Flare multiple times a year. FrameMaker can only be installed on Windows 10 64-bit. There is a lot of misinformation about Arbortext's current status (and pricing model) out there since it's acquisition by PTC in 2005. Flare can be installed on both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10. It's confusing to many because PTC does not have a direct-to-consumer model, you need to go through a reseller (there are many - search for "Arbortext"). For example, in PDF, websites, service portals or help systems.Contrary to critics': Arbortext is alive and well - as both a product and engineering team within PTC. MadCap Flare can publish to different output media simultaneously and in the correct format. Subject: Madcap Flare vs Framemaker Hi all We are a small tech pubs department (2 of us) who currently use Word for our documentation. For example, in the table of contents of an instruction manual or a service portal. This takes the form of a resource structure and a separate content structure for the target medium. Here MadCap Flare even goes a few steps further and can manage source structures (stored content, left in the picture) separately from target structures (content to be published, right in the picture). These (single-source) contents can have different characteristics (variants).Ī wide variety of documentation can be easily and quickly collect and published from this content. All editorial content is structured in topics and stored and managed centrally as information modules. In contrast to multi-source publishing in MS Word, for example, single-source publishing means collecting and publishing editorial content from a single source. Madcap Flare is a single source editorial software and works with topic-oriented XML content.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |