To begin with, FrameMaker is suitable for lengthy and linked content pieces such as books whereas RoboHelp is generally preferred for short content for offering help. However, for advanced technical writers, there lie stark differences between the two. In these situations, our team emphasizes the factors that influence the decision, including but not limited to:įor beginners, the two authoring tools might seem very similar.
While choosing Adobe for their organization is not a difficult decision to make, the confusion starts when the comparison between the two authoring tools begins. This, in turn, has enabled us to understand the documentation requirements of the clients and suggest authoring tools based on that.Īdobe’s FrameMaker and RoboHelp are the two most commonly used authoring tools we offer training and implementation services for. We have trained staff, integrated tools, and implemented structured documentation processes in our client’s organizations. Metapercept’s team has gained expertise in technical writing over years. One of the key challenges faced by organizations is the decision regarding which authoring tool to use for publishing technical documentation. In addition, the rising number of technical communication channels has unveiled new opportunities and challenges for conveying information. Therefore, FrameMaker is apparently good for almost all types of publications including XML, SGML, PDF, and HTML.The inclination towards standardized technical communication has increased manifolds in the past few years. I can be used in concert with a CMS and XML exported to a database. 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. There is a lot of misinformation about Arbortext's current status (and pricing model) out there since it's acquisition by PTC in 2005. 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").
Contrary to critics': Arbortext is alive and well - as both a product and engineering team within PTC.
0 kommentar(er)
