Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tivoli!lark From: lark@tivoli.UUCP (Lar Kaufman) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: FrameMaker and Interleaf Comparison (long) Keywords: FrameMaker, Interleaf, Avalon, troff, SGML Message-ID: <227@tivoli.UUCP> Date: 5 Dec 90 14:37:07 GMT Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX Lines: 557 The following report is edited for reasons of confidentiality and fairness, and no warranty of accuracy or professional expertise is implied or expressed; because of time limitations, there are likely some inaccuracies. It is supplied solely for those curious about factors that affected our decision to purchase a particular set of documentation tools, because of requests for such information from usenet readers. The author does not claim to be totally unbiased, and this report is offered as my opinion only. - Lar Kaufman 12/5/90 * WizardWare is a trademark of TIVOLI Systems, Inc. * FrameMaker is a trademark of Frame Technology, Inc. * Interleaf is a trademark of Interleaf, Inc. * WordPerfect is a trademark of WordPerfect Corp. * MS Word is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. * Unix is a trademark of Unix System Laboratories, Inc. Report on the Selection of Documentation Tools Lar Kaufman November 13, 1990 Summary and Recommendation: On examination of capabilities, only FrameMaker and Interleaf are products that can meet our current and anticipated needs. The FrameMaker package is the lower-cost and more effective solution for our documentation requirements. Introduction In the interests of efficiency and brevity, this report focuses on the two products that became the legitimate contenders for adoption by TIVOLI - FrameMaker and Interleaf. Rather than providing an exhaustive list all functions that are of interest in developing documentation, I instead focus on significant contrasts between these products. While the focus is on the FrameMaker/ Interleaf comparison, other products are mentioned in context. A price/performance analysis is [omitted] The report concludes with a listing of all considered products, with summaries of their suitability for use and their limitations. A listing of some resources and reading materials used in research of this project is also provided. Some of these resources provide feature-by-feature comparisons of products. These resources are available for your examination. The opinions of documentation professionals familiar with the products were also solicited and considered in developing this recommendation. Both Interleaf and Frame have announced major release-level product upgrades in 1Q 1991 (or earlier). I have read of these releases in the press, and have discussed specific issues with vendor representatives. [omission] The planned product changes would not alter this recommendation. Some noteworthy changes are forthcoming and are mentioned in context. General Requirements We want a package to produce long, complex documents in hardcopy form to meet all anticipated documentation needs, and to produce hypertext online documents compatible with the development of WizardWare products. The selected tools must support formatting of equations and have effective, easy-to-use drawing capabilities. The tools should use and support document formatting standards that will maximize our options in selecting future documentation tools [omission] ...such standards [imply] SGML, adopted as a document interchange standard by OSF and SGML/CALS required for some U.S. government applications). We want a tool for document preparation that appeals not only to professional writers, but also to developers, general management and staff. It will improve the efficiency of the documentation function at TIVOLI if technical and marketing documents can be maintained in one format, with appropriate source control. Other considerations are compatibility with traditional documentation tools and output in the Unix environment. Specifically, considerations for compatibility include: emacs interface support, Word, TeX and troff input conversion, and man page output. Finally, the selected tools should be substantially compatible with current and anticipated TIVOLI equipment, working environment, and software development activities. [omission] Comparison A comparison between Frame and Interleaf must address general look-and-feel issues as well as specific performance. General New users tend to prefer the FrameMaker user interface to that of Interleaf. It is easier to learn. The FrameMaker interface conforms generally to the user environment: it looks like SunView when run under SunView, like a Mac when run on a Mac, [omission]. The Interleaf environment looks much the same regardless of the platform in use. The FrameMaker ambiance resembles Word on the Macintosh. Frame uses terminology that is more consistent with Unix, with files and paths selected from a list-format window. Interleaf uses an "office' metaphor with an iconic interface, with "cabinets," "drawers," "folders," and so forth, rather similar to IBM's Office Vision. The Interleaf environment shows element tags in the margin, while Frame lists the element under the cursor in a field at the bottom of the window. Interleaf's 5-level-deep cascade-menu user interface can irritate casual users unfamiliar with its structure. Professional writers with extensive Interleaf experience may prefer the Interleaf interface to FrameMaker's. Writers who like emacs will not be particularly concerned with which GUI is used. (Both packages provide limited emacs support, which is discussed later.) Interleaf presents the full page to the viewer. FrameMaker does the same, but also provides zoom support, with a zoom range from 25 - 1600 percent. This is important for effective display on monitors of lower resolution or smaller size, and is particularly useful in preparing effective illustrations. Frame provides a full-featured package only (currently floating license only, but in future with lower-cost fixed licenses available). Interleaf is bundled in an array of packages offering different levels of features; graphics, equation formatting, and tablemaking capabilities are only available in options or in the graphics package or the "full" Interleaf package. The complexity of preparing a functional mix of Interleaf packages is additionally complicated by the need for host tuning for appropriate support - source files, interface, etc. There is a supplemental, separately licensed, FrameViewer tool which can be used to only read FrameMaker documents, including online hypertext documents. (I'll touch on this again later in this report.) Interleaf has richer text formatting features than FrameMaker for hardcopy output. Interleaf has better handling of multi-column formatting and some advantages in controlling vertical spacing of text on pages that incorporate artwork. FrameMaker, however, has quite acceptable formatting, and we do not plan to use complex multicolumn formatting at this time. Interleaf is also a bit faster than FrameMaker at drawing screens. However, FrameMaker allows you to suspend pagination and turn off display of graphics to rapidly incorporate a series of changes. The pages are reformatted when the editing is completed. I noticed that X Window performance was unacceptably slow on a Sun 3/80 for professional writing, so writers will need to work in a SunView environment (or use a faster X Window host). Key Features There are several important differences between FrameMaker and Interleaf. o FrameMaker has superior equation formatting and handling capabilities. In- deed, Framemaker's equation handling is universally praised by reviewers. The equation tool is easy to use; elements can be resized manually if the automatic formatting is not suitable. The equation formatter can rebuild equations to solve for any element. Equations can be actually solved, if that is the intended usage. Using FrameMaker's live link (hyperlink) capabilities, external values from another program, such as an SQL database, can be plugged into an equation before solving. Interleaf's equation formatting package is extra-cost except with the Graphics and Full packages. o FrameMaker supports simultaneous multi-page viewing and editing. o FrameMaker has a one-level undo function [omission]. Interestingly, Avalon Publisher has a five-level undo function. o FrameMaker's draw program is easier to use than Interleaf's. Interleaf's extra-cost draw program has some superior features, however, such as a variety of splining techniques. FrameMaker's drawing capabilities appear to be adequate. Both Frame and Interleaf will upgrade their draw programs to accommodate SGML and CALS requirements in future releases [omission]. It is unclear whether the Interleaf capabilities will be provided in the Graphics or Full Interleaf packages, or only in the $60,000 CALS package. o FrameMaker's table formatting capabilities are barely adequate, and in this release is distinctly inferior to Interleaf's table formatting package. Frame has scheduled tablemaking improvements for their next release. Note that tablemaking is an option in Interleaf except with the Full package. o SGML and CALS support. This will be important to us in developing online documentation tools: In theory, Interleaf has superior CALS support. They claim to have a completely CALS-compliant package that supplies complete online documentation functions and SGML support. However, this package requires at least three full licenses plus a $60,000 CALS license. That means the buy-in price is $105,000. Moreover, hypertext created with this package will not be accessible unless you have the CALS package. This means that any hypertext you create can only be used in-house. I was not able to get names of users of this package and I am not sure it has actually been delivered to any customer yet. [N.B. After it was clear that we were leaning away from selecting Interleaf, they offered to unbundle the SGML package and offer it separately. (SGML being our chosen vehicle to implement online docs.)] FrameMaker was developed when the SGML ISO standard proposal was already released, and the SGML tagging system is innate to FrameMaker. At FrameMaker's next release, the native storage mode will be fully-compliant SGML, simply by adding some element tags. [N.B. This is not demonstrated.] [omission] o Traditional tools support for the Unix work environment. Interleaf has more conversion filters than does Frame. There are also a number of third-party vendors that supply filters for Interleaf, and only a few for Frame. Therefore, Interleaf should have an edge here. Both Frame and Interleaf offer an extra-cost filter to import Word documents into their product in the form of a DCA (document content architecture) file. This type of conversion can only be partial, and I haven't had time to compare the results. [N.B. FrameMaker's filter does a good job of it.] Neither Interleaf nor Frame provide a filter for TeX, although our Interleaf distributer claims they can locate a product to do the task or do it themselves (at what price?). Interleaf can name several vendors to convert Interleaf-prepared man pages into troff man pages, while Frame cannot. However, with FrameMaker I can do this task myself by creating my own shell script; FrameMaker supports a macro language that I can map to convert the set of man macros. Both products' filters can import troff files. [N.B. FrameMaker says their next release will have bi-directional filters.] Both FrameMaker and Interleaf support a limited emacs keyboard interface. Frame's is more extensive and better documented: some mapped functions are not emacs-compatible (though they are mnemonic). FrameMaker provides a macro language to create new key definitions and assign defined functions. Interleaf allows you to create new functions in Interlisp language, but you must have full Interleaf to have the capability. Interleaf relies more on cascade-menu functions selected by mouse. o Both FrameMaker and Interleaf support only one level of revision (marked by revision bars). FrameMaker additionally plans multiple version control. I can create a multi-level revision control system for either package using a shell script and common document control procedures. o FrameMaker supports the use of text variables. o Both FrameMaker and Interleaf support grey-scaling in illustrations and backgrounds. FrameMaker additionally supports eight color display, with optional color output. This will be useful in developing hyperhelp documents on some hosts. Interleaf's advanced grey-scaling is extra-cost except in the Graphics and Full packages. o Interleaf better handles linking an illustration to text, while FrameMaker better handles linking text to preceding text (preventing unwanted separation by page breaks). Both Frame and Interleaf are faulted in their handling of floating illustrations, but Full Interleaf handles this task better, including easier manual correction of illustration placement. o FrameMaker's search and replace function is case- and style-sensitive, supports wildcard characters, and can be applied globally or in restricted areas. Global mode also searches within illustrations. Interleaf's search and replace function possesses none of these features beyond global search (exclusive of illustrations). o FrameMaker's spelling checker (130,000 words), like Interleaf's (80,000 words), is interactive. In addition, it supports multiple dictionaries - up to 11 at once. Included are 11 foreign-language spelling and hyphenation dictionaries. Interleaf only supports several European languages (British, French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages) if you have their International edition: FrameMaker offers an International edition with a 1.5 million-word multi-language dictionary and US/UK English spelling conversion. FrameMaker marks text that has been checked for spelling, and does not recheck marked text unless it is changed. This makes FrameMaker's spelling checker easier to use as you are writing, to provide the immediate feedback that improves a writer's spelling skills. It also speeds spelling checking on revised documents. o Both FrameMaker and Interleaf are available on all platforms on which we will do software development in [timeframe omitted]. However, Interleaf is available at different build levels on different platforms, and not all versions are format-compatible. Frame is available on all supported platforms in substantially the same release, with full file compatibility. o FrameMaker's font justification algorithm is better than Interleaf's and bounds are adjustable by the user. FrameMaker also permits manual kerning adjustments. Interleaf's automatic kerning is superior. o FrameMaker's character set is much larger than Interleaf's, supports automatic fraction generation up to three levels deep, and (Zapf) dingbats. o Interleaf's page layout capabilities are more precise than FrameMaker's, but less adaptable (cannot be adjusted within the document). FrameMaker allows mixing of portrait and landscape pages, while Interleaf does not. Frame supplies a greater number and variety of style sheets, including styles intended for online display. o FrameMaker warns of unresolved cross-references. o Interleaf supports anchored illustrations with in-page float. o FrameMaker supports live links to system calls and other applications and files, including full SQL support and linking to dedicated 3-D CAD packages for illustration (and even animation). Interleaf supports live-link (active-document) capabilities with its CALS package and says it will offer the capability with Interleaf 5.0. Interleaf's promised active-document feature is only discussed in terms of hypertext support - not data and graphics importation. o FrameMaker can import Interleaf documents. Interleaf says they cannot import FrameMaker documents. (They should be able to do so using the CALS package, by treating a Frame document as a CALS document.) The Rest of the Story We considered all known viable options for creating documentation. Some of these are worthy of consideration as supplemental tools for our selections. o Documenter's Work Bench (AT&T). This is the venerable traditional set of Unix documentation tools: nroff, troff, eqn, tbl, pic, ptx, ms, man, etc. It is remarkably flexible and it is easy to tinker with in Unix. Many of the tools can be supplemented or replaced by better tools. It has several significant failings as a documentation toolkit, however. Cross-referencing and indexing tools are non-standard and limited. Graphics support is negligible. [omission] The primary disqualifier, however, is that dwb is simply too slow to use as a production tool. [omission] Note: 4.4BSD will not provide man pages; an alternative will be developed (probably based on TeX). o xroff, Xviews (Image Network). This is an updated alternative to dwb. Device-independent troff and enhancements. Provides X Windows output formatting and device drivers for a remarkable selection of printers. Also available to run on MS-DOS. Image Network also has developed an SGML- to-xroff conversion tool and is interested in developing online documentation tools based on SGML. Xroff has the same advantages and disqualifier as dwb, although output options are better. I recommend [omission] o sqtroff, Author/Animator (SoftQuad) SoftQuad's sqtroff is yet another device-independent troff. [omission] SoftQuad is one of the very first SGML developers in North America. I was hoping for a seamless SGML/troff/man conversion tool by now, worthy of serious consideration (perhaps in conjunction with Xviews). Unfortunately, Author/Animator, the WYSIWYG SGML editor/formatter is only available currently for Macintosh, which SoftQuad identifies as a key multimedia platform. (SGML has great potential as a multimedia/hypermedia tool.) Author/Editor for SunView and X will not be available until 1Q 91, and the sqtroff/SGML/man conversion tool will not be available until 2Q. [omission] A save-disabled demo version of Author/Editor for Macintosh is available in-house for those who would like to try it. A manual is provided. o TeX tools. This is an appealing option, as the developers and most of management is familiar with TeX and LaTeX. TeX is a powerful formatter, with excellent publishing features. The problem of having no supported or integrated package of tools can be partially addressed by using Arbor Publisher (Arbor), formerly known as ArborText. [omission] The potential of TeX is blunted by the high learning curve and the low productivity rate to accomplish sophisticated production. (Much of the formatting power of TeX cannot be harnessed from the macro packages available, and thus working in raw TeX is necessary.) An effort to integrate TeX tools is now taking place at the Free Software Foundation... [omission] with excellent hypertext potential. [omission] o Avalon Publisher (Elan) Avalon Publisher is a bold attempt to go head-to- head with Interleaf and Frame. It is a remarkably easy-to-use tool, well integrated and fast, with an emacs-type keyboard interface. Unfortunately, it is too incomplete to meet our needs. There is no equation formatting tool, and the draw tool, while very friendly to use, has some serious limitations. It cannot, for example, draw or letter white-on-black. Avalon Publisher also had no filters and conversion tools, although Avalon/eroff conversion will be available 1Q90. (eroff is yet another device-independent troff.) I would select Avalon to use as a newsletter production tool. I was very pleased with the user interface, but we need a more powerful and flexible production tool. We have a save-disabled demo version of Avalon in house, with a manual. o Island Write/Draw/Paint (Island Graphics). Island positions its package as a budget-priced, powerful tool set to supplement Interleaf or FrameMaker. It doesn't have the powerful device-drivers, but it does offer a powerful toolkit for document preparation, and emphasizes that it can import and export between Island W/D/P and both Interleaf and FrameMaker. It offers a nice clip-art library as an option. An earlier version of these tools was offered by Sun as Sun Write, Sun Draw, and Sun Paint. We did not test Island, although we have an information package. Island's strategy is to suggest that you buy either Interleaf or FrameMaker as your master production tool, and supplement it with multiple copies of W/D/P as an economical way to prepare documentation. I was not taken with this suggestion, as my experience in document conversion has shown that it is very difficult to perform document conversion efficiently enough to incorporate the technique as a production method. The loss of significant formatting information is simply too great. On the other hand, Island does offer features that encourage me to consider it as a supplemental tool: - Island has a strong graphics focus, and can import a large number of import formats, converting them to Frame or Interleaf form. The draw package looks very powerful. The Paint program is unparalleled in Frame or Interleaf [omission] - If the document conversion and graphics importation functions are good, it is more cost-effective to buy Island W/D/P than to buy the graphics filter option package for FrameMaker (or Interleaf). As a bonus, you get the ability to convert between FrameMaker and Interleaf document formats via Island, and an overflow writing tool to use without buying another user license. This may be a very effective tool for creating graphics [omission] ...if we need to go beyond the draw capabilities of FrameMaker. o Word Processors. The PC environment has produced several powerful word processors that are sufficiently powerful to use as publishing tools. They excel in ease-of-use and graphics handling. There are two major word-processing packages that have been migrated from the desktop PC environment to Unix: WordPerfect and Microsoft Word. - WordPerfect 4.2 has been ported to a number of Unix platforms, and has a large body of features. However, WordPerfect is [weak] when working with large files or multi-document formatting tasks. [omission] Also, the (shift/alt/ctrl-)function key oriented approach to editing makes it an undesirable tool for serious writing. WordPerfect Corporation has established its market share because of its remarkable customer support [in the PC environment] [omission] WordPerfect 5.0 is available for SCO Xenix only. - Word is a more intriguing possibility. Microsoft announced a project to migrate Word to various Unix platforms. However, when I enquired at Microsoft about Word for Unix, I was referred to SCO. The SCO sales representative insisted that Word for Unix was ported to Xenix for the 286 and 386 only, but it would "run fine" on SCO Unix 386. (I infer that Word for Unix is compiled for the 286 architecture.) He was unaware of any plans to migrate Word to Sun platforms, and could not tell me whether X Window interfacing was supported. (I presume it is.) Unfortunately, SCO clearly wants this product only to promote SCO Unix/Xenix sales, and Microsoft seems indifferent to the potential Unix market. o Miscellaneous tools. I encountered some interesting byways that we will want to explore in the future for our needs in preparing online documentation and context-sensitive help: - BBN/Slate (Bolt, Berenek and Newman). An X Window based, multimedia workstation communications program suitable for use for network e-mail, real-time workgroup conferencing, and multimedia publishing. Currently runs on the IBM RS/6000, Sun workstations, DECstations and VAXstations. "It is designed... to create, edit, integrate and share on-line technical and business information. The program can transmit multiple forms of data, such as text, spreadsheets, business and geometric graphics, color images, data files and voice annotation (on some workstations)." Color and b&w PostScript output devices are supported. My guess is that this is another SGML product, as it was developed for government and defense users initially. Pricing is actually reasonable (for end-users) at $995, with a volume discount. I intend to gather more information about BBN/Slate. - Open Text Systems, of Waterloo, Ontario, markets Open Text Tools. (The Open Text Tools were developed for the Electronic Oxford English Dictionary project, are SGML-based tools that run on a variety of X Window Unix platforms, and are being ported to Macintosh platforms.) The Transduction Toolkit converts various text formats into and out of SGML format. PAT accesses a huge (hyper)text database using a variety of search and display features. LECTOR is a hypertext display system. GOEDEL builds a production database with audit trails and concurrency protection. TRUC is a structured text editor. EDITOR'S WORKBENCH integrates PAT, LECTOR, and GOEDEL in a single package. This stuff is remarkable, and demonstrates some of the potential of SGML. Open Text Systems wants a lot of money for their products. It appears that they are marketing directly to large corporations for internal information management, rather than to application developers. Competing and/or related information-handling and retrieval products are available from BRS, CP International, Cuandra Associates, Excaliber, Fulcrum Technologies, Information Dimensions, Knowledge Set, Third Eye Software, Thunderstone, Verity, Wisdom Technologies, and Zylab. I will gather more information about these packages for examination while preparing recommendations for developing our online documentation system. The Bottom Line Raw Prices These are the offered product prices for various products and related services. [ Prices are omitted in consideration of vendors and VARs.] References These materials are available for your examination in reference to this recommendation: o SGML: An Author's Guide to the Standard Generalized Markup Language, Martin Bryan, Addison-Wesley, 1988. o Prowess on the Desktop, UnixWorld, March 1990. o Interleaf TPS and FrameMaker In a Technical Environment, Jon Glickman and Scott Hatch, 37th International Technical Communication Conference, Santa Clara, CA, May 22, 1990. o Thinking in Multimedia, UnixWorld, August 1990. o In Search of Text, UnixWorld, August 1990. o Nearly Perfect WordPerfect, UnixWorld, September 1990. o Publish or Perish: Comparing Desktop Publishing Platforms, Personal Workstation, September 1990 o Currents, Unix Review, October 1990. o Avalon Publisher to vie with Interleaf and Frame Maker (sic), Personal Workstation, October 1990. o Is the Typesetter Obsolete?: High-end DTP Packages, Byte, October 1990. o FrameMaker Now in X Window, Motif, Unix Today!, October 1, 1990. o Report on Desktop Publishing, Seybold, October 3, 1990. o Multimedia Communications Tool Bows, Unix Today!, Oct. 15, 1990. o A Tailored Publishing System, Unix Today!, October 15, 1990 o The Age of Hypertext, UnixWorld, November 1990. o [host/path omitted], A compendium of recent Usenet correspondence and postings. o Promotional Materials from Open Text Systems, Frame Technologies, Interleaf, Elan Software, SoftQuad, and Island Software. o Demonstration Software for: o Author/Editor (Macintosh) including User's Guide o Avalon Publisher (SPARC) including User's Guide o Interleaf Publisher Full, Release 4.0 (SunView and X Window). With import filter package. Documentation separately acquired from [omitted]. o FrameMaker 2.1x (SunView and X Window). No documentation other than online. ------- End of Report ------- -lar -- Lar Kaufman I would feel more optimistic about a bright future (voice) 512-329-2455 for man if he spent less time proving that he can (fax) 512-329-2755 outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness lark@tivoli.com and respecting her seniority. - E.B. White Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com