Publisher vs FrameMaker

[David E. Bernholdt]

I have never used Frame, but our Project has been using Publisher for well
over a year now.  I'm afraid the Chuck Musciano has presented a somewhat
lopsided view of the Publisher software.  I don't want to start a net-wide
argument, but I do want to address some of the comments that were made:

chuck at trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: (edited for brevity)
>X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 34, message 7 of 12
>
>I found Publisher to be a backwards step from Frame.  First, it failed
>Musciano's Law of New Software: I sat down without the manual and tried to
>do something productive.  I got nowhere.

I too sat down with Publisher without the manual and had little problem
getting things done.  I guess different people "adapt" to new things
differently.  Most of our users (> 60) haven't looked at the manuals.

>Publisher is not a WYSISYG package.  It is a compose/preview package.

The present version of Publisher is very nearly WYSIWYG (admittedly
previous versions of Publisher were not as good in this regard).  It has a
special table editor and a special equation editor to simplify putting in
those kinds of objects, but everything shows up in the edit window pretty
much like its going to look in the final document.  I find that you really
only have to preview just before printing to check all of the formatting.

>The user interface is poor.  Commands which do one thing in the compose
>window do another in the preview window.  For example, I seem to recall
>that in compose, you used ^H, ^J, ^K, and ^L to move around (which is bad
>enough) but in preview you used B, F, P, and N (backwards, forwards,
>previous, and next).  I don't want to learn two tools in one!

In all of the versions of Publisher we've had, from the beta release to
the present one, this has *not* been true.  The editor is modeled after
EMACS as far as key assignments go, but the key, mouse, and all other
definitions are fully configurable by the user if desired.  If you don't
like ^P, ^N, ^F, & ^B you can change them.

>The drawing programs are separate tools.  Again, I don't want to learn N
>tools, I want to learn one.

Does it really matter if the tools are distinct executables or not?
Certainly there will be different "command" structures for creating
graphics, etc. - are they easier to learn because you don't have to bring
up a separate tool to use them?

>Overall, Publisher seems targetted to people who know TeX.

That may have been true to *some* extent at the start, but it isn't any
longer.  Publisher makes use of TeX and SGML, but you don't have to know
either to use it.  Publisher also has the advantage of being able to
import and export TeX, LaTeX, and SGML format documents for compatibility
with other systems.  This is very useful when, for example, you an a
collaborator (who uses LaTeX, say) can both work on a paper easily.
Publisher also accepts TeX input, so that if you have something unusual to
do & know how to do it in TeX, you can do it.

>I can insert PostScript into my Frame documents (and do occasionally) to
>accomplish the few things that Frame cannot.

You can do this in Publisher as well; also Sun bitmaps, TeX code, and
PubPaint, and PubDraw objects.

>Frame is, I believe, $995/station at educational rates.  With the floating
>license server, you can actually get away with much less.  For example,
>suppose, you have 15 stations, but actual use of Maker is about four
>simultaneous users.  Just buy four licenses, and share them among the 15
>Suns.  The license server idea is one which needs to be picked up by other
>companies.

nI do not know what the Publisher costs, but we have it licensed for half
of our 60 workstations - we tend to have a lot of people writing papers.
This sounds pretty much like Frame's license server to me.

When we were choosing a desktop publishing package, one of the important
considerations for our Project was the ease of entering equations.  AT THE
TIME, Publisher was the only package we found that had a "reasonable"
method for entering equations.  Things may have changed now, but it
remains an important consideration to us.

Arbortex, who produce Publisher, have been very responsive to us - both in
answering (sometimes stupid) questions, as well as fixing any problems we
might encounter.  They have also been very responsive to
requests/suggestions for additional features.  They are really interested
in the needs of their customers.

I'm quite sure that Arbortext would also be glad to answer questions or
send a demo.  They can be reached at (313) 996 3566 or FAX (313) 996 3573.

DISCLAIMER:  I have no connection with Arbortext (who produce the
Publisher) other than having used their software for > 1 year now.

Dave
-- 
David Bernholdt			bernhold at qtp.ufl.edu
Quantum Theory Project		bernhold at ufpine.bitnet
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611		904/392 9306