Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekig5!briand
From: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: Any good WYSIWIG desktop publishing software on UNIX Workstations?
Message-ID: <6543@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Date: 10 Jul 90 22:40:16 GMT
References: <1924@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> <12980001@hpspdra.HP.COM> <1990Jul9.032311.6040@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <3944@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 179

>     After the number of messages describing InterLeaf, I feel compelled to
>mention Frame Maker, from Frame Technology.
>
>     Frame is an outstanding tool, far superior to InterLeaf (IMHO).  It runs
>on Sun, Apollo, HP, DEC, NeXT, and Mac platforms, and documents are COMPLETELY
>interchangeable.

Actually, so are Interleafs, prior misinformation from guessers notwithstanding.

>It [Frame] is incredibly easy to use, is cheap ($2500 for the
>complete package; get a quote from InterLeaf on the ENTIRE package, not just
>the intro-level slim TPS stuff they push), and does an excellent job with
>any number or size documents.

It is true that complete Frame is $2500, which is the cost for Core Plus TPS
Interleaf (the basic setup). However, a careful examination of the capabilities
will show that the very basic Interleaf is about functionally equivalent to
full Frame.

>     Frame really wins on "unusual" layouts, like newsletters and such.

Yes, if you are doing unusual few-pagers, it might appear more friendly at
first. See below.

>It has, hands down, the best mathematical WYSIWYG typesetter in the business.
>The integrated editor and spelling checker are much better than InterLeaf,
>and the search and replace function is unparalleled (you can do things like
>search for a particular font usage, and replace with anything, including
>a graphical object).
>
>     The InterLeaf interface is, in the opinion of many, just terrible.
>EVERYTHING is in a menu, and the menu contents change based upon mouse
>position and document state.  While InterLeaf has some fancy name for this
>and claims that it is better, recent studies (see SIGCHI, April, 1989)
>have shown this to be a less effective interface, producing greater
>cognitive loading upon the user.  There are few, if any, keyboard
>accelerators.

This is a really interesting area. Interleaf does appear less friendly at first.
However, after you have used both for a while, Frame's friendlinessseems to
be all "on the surface." It's as if Interleaf has studied how professional
typographers use the tools, and Frame has studied how desktop publishers think
they want to use the tools. The difference is important in as little as an
hour. Certainly, Frame does feel more comfortable, more "Macintosh-like" at
first. And golly gee, it really does let you search for a Helvetica lower-case
"f" if it is underlined and shadowed. But that's NOT the sort of things you
need to DO in a manuals department with deadlines to meet.
>
>     Frame uses a combination of dialog boxes and pull-down menus for a
>very Mac-like interface.  There are keyboard equivalents for every 
>operation, letting expert touch typists do everything without touching
>the mouse.
>
>     A recent review of DTP products for the Mac refused to consider
>InterLeaf a Mac product, because its interface was so foreign that Mac users
>could not readily use it.

This is true, but the original requestor asked about unix programs. Or are we
Interleaf-bashing here? Actually, Interleaf has made a conscious choice to
make all of their platforms perform identically as Interleaf, rather than try
to fit Interleaf to the platform. They believe (probably) that Interleaf users
will primarily be using Interleaf. This may or may not be the case with you.

>The July 2, 1990 InfoWorld rated the InterLeaf
>interface "unacceptable" in terms ease of learning, and just "satisfactory"
>in ease of use.  All other tools (Frame, Pagemaker, Xpresss, and Ventura)
>were rated either good or very good in ease of use.  InfoWorld rated
>InterLeaf last of these five packages overall, while Frame came in next
>to last.

The InfoWorld review has been a laugh to people in the publishing world, be-
cause the ONLY thing it proved was the reviewer's ignorance of the difference
between a publishing system and a word processor. This opinion has been ex-
pressed to be by representatives of Interleaf, Frame resellers, and our own
systems people.

The very last part of this posting covers some of the functional differences
that make Interleaf a tool for a documentation department rather than just
another fancy page-layout program. Frame does not touch these areas.

>Admittedly, I am a very big fan of Frame.  But do not, DO NOT, consider
>purchasing InterLeaf without trying Frame first.  Call 1-800-U4FRAME to get
>a free demo copy.

I would agree. However, I would do it with an open mind, and I would do it
after using both, in my own work area, for at least a week or two. When a group
of our engineers were going through this evaluation, we (the documentation
group) recommended Interleaf, and the engineers balked at the price. So they
brought in a Frame workstation for a week. They independently concluded every-
thing I report here, and bought Interleaf.

At the same time, we in documentation let some of our illustrators play with
the Frame box. They were familiar with Claris CAD on the Mac, Interleaf, and
many other drawing programs. Of the three, they liked Claris CAD first,
Interleaf second (far back), and way way back was Frame.

>And, ask your InterLeaf sales rep why so many InterLeaf employees have quit
>to go work at Frame :-)

Maybe Frame pays better, maybe they are located in a part of the country that
is a more desirable area to live? Who knows? Is it a reason that matters to
you, the customer? Or was this poster just a rabid Frame fanatic?

Here are some of the features and concepts that are unique to Interleaf:

EFFECTIVITY: Suppose you are writing documents for two separate products, that
are really very similar except for a few differences. With a typical package,
you write up one, you copy it, and you modify the copy to fit the second
product. You wind up with two documents and two document files. With Interleaf,
you tag the differences in the original file, and specify which version of the
file you want to have print out. One set of files, two documents.

This seems pretty trivial until you have to maintain the documents. One day,
there is a change in the common portion of the products. With the traditional
package, you make the change in one set of files, and then you have to remem-
ber to make the same identical change in the other set. With Interleaf, you
make the change once, it propagates to all versions.

With one or two products, it's simple either way. I live in a department where
we maintain 300+ older versions of manuals, many of which are several years
old, many of which have varied common elements throughout, and many of which
have had many many mods over the years. Our maintenance people COULD NOT keep
up with this if the writers did not have and use effectivity.

In one case, I had to develop two manuals in parallel, where the devices were
very similar. We couldn't wait to finish one before modifying it for the second.
This was in the days before effectivity, and I estimate that I spent 30% of my
time simply making VERY VERY certain that EVERY change was correctly duplicated
in both manuals. Effectivity would have made me 30% more effective in that
situation.

ACTIVE DOCUMENTS: Interleaf has developed a method whereby you can adjust your
document to reflect the information in a database. This can be small changes
like the entries in a specification table, or it can reflect giant changes in
structure and content. Thus, your service manual could be the same file set
for two different documents, such as a field-replacable module level combined
with a detailed component-level document. Again, the benefits are similar to
those for effectivity.

Or say you are developing plans for a new venture. If the document is distri-
buted on-line, you can modify the document for the reader. A VP of finance
might get a lot of financial detail that you don't really want to distribute
to the folks in the stockroom.

Even more than the feature itself, this reveals the futurist orientation of
Interleaf as a company.

CALS: If your customers are the military (DOD) or their contractors, then your
documents MUST be deliverable in a specific mag-tape form. This form is very
specific, from writing style to content organization. Interleaf offers a CALS-
compliance package that ensures your text qualifies, then outputs the proper
tape format for you.

Eventually, CALS will require that the DOD have on-line dial-up access to YOUR
documents on YOUR computer in CALS-compliant form. Interleaf is part of the
industry consortium that is guiding CALS so that the military only asks for
what is possible.

Frame has announced that they will have some sort of CALS support in the
future.

These features above indicate that Interleaf is of a totally different mindset,
and therefore totally different orientation, than any other package on the
market.

These features are not included with the basic $2500 Interleaf, it is true.
But then, if you buy Interleaf and decide later you need them, you have an
upgrade path. If you buy Frame and decide later, you start over on a totally
new platform, with no investment to leverage from.

I'd do what this poster suggests, and look at both very carefully. But look
behind the flash and glitter, and decide which system, and which company, you
want supporting you two, three, or ten years out.

-- 
-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 47-780
Beaverton, OR   97077                        (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)