Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>So what would we gain, by using FrameMaker?
>
> I don't use it, but I think it would involve too steep a learning curve
> to be efficient for part-time creation of relatively short documents
> where look and
> feel is either not very important or can be managed manually.

Can you expand on this statement? What exactly do you mean, and how do you 
think FrameMaker is better in this regard?


>>I have access to high-end publishing tools, but decided to use Word on
>>purpose. I think everyone who works on the project, should be able to edit
>>the datasheet, instead of having to go through a FrameMaker czar.
>
> You don't have a workflow? ;-)

What's "workflow"? :-)


> I currently use Indesign, but I've
> used Quark a lot,
> and played with Pagemaker. No MS Publisher experience.

I've used Publisher, Illustrator, CorelDraw, and dabbled in both QE and PM.


> I don't like Word for this kind of application. IME, Word just does
> too many strange
> and unpredictable things like re-formatting when you change the
> printer, to be a
> reliable page layout tool.

"Reformatting when you change the printer"? Can you give an example when 
this happens?


> The text looks better too with Indy or Xpress, it's
> better kerned and so on. Guides that can be precisely positioned and 
> objects
> can be snapped to them, arbitrarily fine nudging of objects and so on lets
> you create a precise layout.

I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I like using CorelDraw 
for desktop publishing because I have a lot of control over what's going on. 
Having so much control has its drawbacks, however.


> Nothing wrong with Word for something like a programmer's reference, and
> if that's standard in your office, that certainly could have advantages.

After we've set up the template, I haven't ran into any big problems.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist