rcj@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Robert Johnson) (07/18/89)
I need some help. Our department at work has been producing ~200
page manuals recently. All of the work is done on computers (graphics
on Lotus Freelance, and Harvard Graphics, and text on CEO (a word
processing package on the Data General that I can download into
wordperfect 5.0). The only problem is that to combine the two, we are
resorting to cutting and pasting the finished product together. This,
I feel, is rather pointless, and have begun looking into a good
desktop publisher. Briefely, this is what I need:
1) Capability for >150pg documents.
2) Lotus Freelance & Harvard Graphics compatability.
3) Word Perfect compatibility (need I ask for this?!)
4) Ease of use.
I think that #4 is the real stickler here. I have looked into Ventura,
and it definately does not addapt itself to ease of use from what I have
seen. Are there any other programs out there that do what I need?
How about GEM/3 Desktop Publisher? I need a braod survey of what's
out there so I can make a good recomendation.
Thanks,
Robert C. Johnson
P.S. Mail, & I'll sumarize.
--
| Robert C. Johnson | "Minds are like parachutes. |
| rcj@attctc.dallas.tx.us | They only function when they are |
| (214) 357-5306 | Open." -Sir James Dewar |
russ@prism.gatech.EDU (Russell Shackelford) (07/18/89)
In article <8703@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rcj@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Robert Johnson) writes: > I need some help. Our department at work has been producing ~200 > page manuals recently. All of the work is done on computers (graphics > on Lotus Freelance, and Harvard Graphics, and text on CEO (a word > processing package on the Data General that I can download into > wordperfect 5.0). The only problem is that to combine the two, we are > resorting to cutting and pasting the finished product together. This, > I feel, is rather pointless, and have begun looking into a good > desktop publisher. Briefely, this is what I need: > > 1) Capability for >150pg documents. > 2) Lotus Freelance & Harvard Graphics compatability. > 3) Word Perfect compatibility (need I ask for this?!) > 4) Ease of use. > > I think that #4 is the real stickler here. I have looked into Ventura, > and it definately does not addapt itself to ease of use from what I have > seen. I believe that you are on the verge of making a common-but-serious error, namely: Confusing "ease of use" with "ease of LEARNING to use". Specifically, I have some experience with Ventura and I have found it to be EXTREMELY easy to use .... once I "got a handle" on it. It is particularly valueable for long documents, such as you describe, especially when revisions are called for. Ventura keeps your original files intact, albeit with readily-understandable formatting tags inserted, so that you can modify the document but still have all the formatting work without tedious updating to accomodate content-changes. Ventura LOOKS hairy AT FIRST. But it IS logically arranged and EASY to use AS SOON AS you get over being mystified by it. Personally, I would give it an "A+" for "ease of use", and a "C+" for "ease of learning to use". Also, while I am NOT intimately familiar with alternatives to Ventura, I would be relatively skeptical of any product which was extremely easy to learn, in that I would question how much power it has. In other words, desktop publishing SHOULD give you considerable control over ALL the facets of document appearance. And I do not understand how this could be accomplished in a program that is immediately learn-able, due to the NUMEROUS facets that need to be controlled. Again, I suggest that you give Ventura a try, with your Number 1 goal being to overcome the initial mystification. The problem is NOT any inherent difficulty of Ventura; the problem IS an expectation that a powerful formatting tool will come with a 5-minute learning curve. I would anticipate that using Ventura on your existing manual would provide you with the experience necessary to master the thing. It makes no sense to try to learn such a program by sitting down and reading the manual. Rather, you should start with your document and refer to the manula and tutorial AS ISSUES arise, i.e., first get the paragraph formatting done; then import your graphics; then tie the graphics to the text, and so on. Within a week or two, you'll be comfortable with it! hope this helps (even though it's not what you asked for) -- Russell Shackelford School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332 russ@prism.gatech.edu (404) 834-4759
BL.JPL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jonathan Lavigne) (07/19/89)
In article <1100@hydra.gatech.EDU>, russ@prism.gatech.EDU (Russell Shackelford) writes: >In article <8703@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rcj@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Robert Johnson) writes: >> I need some help. Our department at work has been producing ~200 >> page manuals recently. >> [Text ommitted] >> Briefely, this is what I need: >> >> 1) Capability for >150pg documents. >> 2) Lotus Freelance & Harvard Graphics compatability. >> 3) Word Perfect compatibility (need I ask for this?!) >> 4) Ease of use. >> >> I think that #4 is the real stickler here. I have looked into Ventura, >> and it definately does not addapt itself to ease of use from what I have >> seen. > >I believe that you are on the verge of making a common-but-serious error, >namely: > >Confusing "ease of use" with "ease of LEARNING to use". > >Specifically, I have some experience with Ventura and I have found it to >be EXTREMELY easy to use .... once I "got a handle" on it. > [Much text omitted] I agree completely. All the articles and messages I've read suggest that Ventura is by far the best PC program for doing long structured documents -- unless perhaps you have a fast '386 machine with lots of memory and can afford Interleaf. I've been using Ventura on an XT for over a year and I've found that, though the program offers a wealth of possibilities, you can use it effectively without necessarily mastering very many of them. If you're not interested in doing much design work on your own, there are ready-made style sheets from various sources. Also quite a few introductory books, as well as classes, and users groups. Personally, I've always stayed away from programs that claim "ease of use". It usually means they don't do very much -- or least they don't do the things you end up wanting them to do. One great feature of Ventura is that it keeps your text files separate from other files, so you can work on them in your favorite word processor or in Ventura itself without have to import and export files. Right now I'm writing a 200 page manual and designing a style sheet for it at the same time. When I'm in the mood to write, I can concentrate on that and when I want to see how things look, I can load the files into Ventura and watch text get set up in the proper margins, with the right fonts, and with rules and boxes drawn where I want them. If that isn't ease of use, I don't know what is. One area where Ventura doesn't excel is in creating complicated graphics. But my XT couldn't handle the program if it did do great graphics, and, anyhow, Ventura is able to import graphics from most PC graphics packages. Jonathan Lavigne BL.JPL@RLG.STANFORD.EDU Research Libraries Group Stanford University
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (07/19/89)
> 1) Capability for >150pg documents. > 2) Lotus Freelance & Harvard Graphics compatability. > 3) Word Perfect compatibility (need I ask for this?!) > 4) Ease of use. There are two possible solutions that do NOT require a DTP program. First switch to Lotus Manuscript which allows you to insert Freelance and Harvard Graphics into your text. The second is to get a graphics file conversion routine (e.g. Hijaak from Inset) which will convert Freelance and Harvard files into a format that that Wordperfect will understand. I use Wordperfect 5.0 to product documents that incorporate both text and graphics. It is much much easier and faster than using a DTP package. It is a clearly superior method if the manual is subject to frequent changes. In this situation, a DTP package is justified only if the manual MUST be of the highest possible publication standards. If the manual "only" needs to look professionally done then WP 5.0 will do a perfectly good job. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (07/20/89)
> Robert Johnson writes: > I need some help. Our department at work has been producing ~200 > page manuals recently. All of the work is done on computers (graphics > on Lotus Freelance, and Harvard Graphics, and text on CEO (a word > processing package on the Data General that I can download into > wordperfect 5.0). The only problem is that to combine the two, we are > resorting to cutting and pasting the finished product together. This, > I feel, is rather pointless, and have begun looking into a good > desktop publisher. Briefely, this is what I need: > > 1) Capability for >150pg documents. > 2) Lotus Freelance & Harvard Graphics compatability. > 3) Word Perfect compatibility (need I ask for this?!) > 4) Ease of use. Unless there is something you are not telling us, WordPerfect 5.0 will do what you want all by itself, or with the addition of Hijaak for file format translation. It has excellent desktop publishing features. > I think that #4 is the real stickler here. I have looked into Ventura, > and it definately does not addapt itself to ease of use from what I have > seen. Are there any other programs out there that do what I need? > How about GEM/3 Desktop Publisher? I need a braod survey of what's > out there so I can make a good recomendation. Ventura is not hard to use. It requires that you think like a layout artist. That can be accomplished with some training. The trick is to get training on layout rather than on Ventura. (You will need Ventura training too.) The same applies to using WordPerfect 5.0 for desktop publishing -- you need training in both layout and WordPerfect. If you can provide a USPS mail address, I will send you some info. I can't usually email successfully outside AT&T. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (201 899-0804eve/201 957-6068day) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
casey@well.UUCP (Kathleen Creighton) (07/21/89)
I *also* use WordPerfect 5.0 for dtp, but I came very close to losing an almost-finished 16-page newsletter (the file had become corrupted) which was saved through sheer luck after an hour's work by a tech friend of mine. So I have so many caveats for using WP 5.0 for dtp that you might as well bite the bullet and go with Ventura. I know how *I* would proceed with a 150-page manual in WP 5.0 (saving the original ASCII files, then copying them for every single operation, such as editing, after that), but I think that's entirely too much work for a project of this size. The fundamental problem of WP 5.0 is that you *never know* where, when or how a file is corrupted. So take the easy way out and skip it.
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (07/21/89)
Danny Low writes: > > I use Wordperfect 5.0 to product documents that incorporate > both text and graphics. It is much much easier and faster > than using a DTP package. It is a clearly superior method > if the manual is subject to frequent changes. In this > situation, a DTP package is justified only if the manual > MUST be of the highest possible publication standards. > If the manual "only" needs to look professionally done then > WP 5.0 will do a perfectly good job. I use both WordPerfect 5.0 and Ventura 2.0. I disagree with the above statement. Both are excellent programs, but they have slightly different uses. WordPerfect is better than Ventura for technical writing where you are dealing primarily with text plus graphics -- that is where the text is primary. I use WordPerfect for product manuals that are primarily text. What WP does that is useful is to move the graphics to follow the text and maintains the graphics position relative to the text. (VP maintains the graphics position relative to the page.) What WP is not good at is page layout. If you add text, the format of pages changes. WP is also very poor for newsletter and magazine layout because it cannot deal with multiple text streams that are interleaved (i.e., "continued on page x"). Ventura is better than WordPerfect for situations where you are dealing primarily with graphics plus text (note the reversal of emphasis). I use Ventura for Picture-By-Picture how-to books and for newsltters and magazines. In all of these cases, the page layout is primary and the text must fit into it. In VP, the page is fixed and the text moves while in WP the text is fixed and the page moves. If you "anchor" a graphic to text in VP, it will move to the page containing the text, but its position on the page will be relative to the page (e.g., upper left corner) rather than relative to the text (e.g., immediately following theparagraph in which it is referenced). Compared to this basic difference in philosophy, most of the other differences between WP and VP are minor. They are both extremely powerful. Incidently, Ventura is just as easy and fast as WordPerfect, just different. Pagemaker is another story. It is ideal for short brochures and advertising, but falls down rather badly when you are dealing with long documents. It is exactly what it's names says: page maker. (Now if we had a book maker program....) Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Usually unable to reply to email outside AT&T) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (07/22/89)
>The fundamental problem of WP 5.0 is that you *never know* where, when or >how a file is corrupted. So take the easy way out and skip it. This is a bug. It can be corrected. It may already be corrected. WP makes bug fix releases every 2-3 months and it only costs $10 to get one. Bugs like this can show up in Ventura or Pagemaker or any other complicated program. It is not a reason to avoid WP 5.0. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
casey@well.UUCP (Kathleen Creighton) (07/23/89)
It doesn't *matter* that it's a "bug" or that WPCorp might eventually fix it if you're working on a 150-page manuscript with a deadline.
mitch@arcturus.UUCP (Mitchell S. Gorman) (07/24/89)
casey@well.UUCP (Kathleen Creighton) writes: >It doesn't *matter* that it's a "bug" or that WPCorp might eventually fix >it if you're working on a 150-page manuscript with a deadline. ... And _I_ will bring up once again the sore point of software owners having to pay for fixes. Being a programmer myself, I am well aware that "there is ALWAYS one more bug," but I think it's just a bit too mercenary to charge someone for the correction to one of your own mistakes! Mitch @ Rockwell, Anaheim mitch@arcturus.UUCP Disclaimer: Of course, MY code NEVER has bugs... ;^)
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (07/24/89)
>It doesn't *matter* that it's a "bug" or that WPCorp might eventually fix >it if you're working on a 150-page manuscript with a deadline. I agree that in the situation you were involved with, it does not matter but for someone else consdiering WP it is only a cautionary note to make sure the problem has been fixed. It is not a reason for a flat out rejection of the product unless the bug is still there. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
tom@mims-iris.uucp (Tom Haapanen) (07/25/89)
Kathleen Creighton <casey@well.UUCP> writes: > I *also* use WordPerfect 5.0 for dtp, but I came very close to losing an > almost-finished 16-page newsletter (the file had become corrupted) which > was saved through sheer luck after an hour's work by a tech friend of > mine. So I have so many caveats for using WP 5.0 for dtp that you might > as well bite the bullet and go with Ventura. We have been using Ventura for over a year for all kinds of stuff, including some 100-page manuals. If I were to decide now, I think I'd go with PageMaker instead, mainly for the following reasons: - PageMaker uses Windows instead of GEM. We have a number of packages using Windows, and it'd be nice to have a consistent environment. - Ventura is *STUPID* and saves absolute pathnames in files. This makes it a royal pain to move your files to another directory, another disk, or worse yet, another machine. DUMB! However, I'm not that familiar with the _PC_ PageMaker, it could have some serious problems, too. Can someone tell me what disadvantages PageMaker has as compared to Ventura, if any? (mail, please...) \tom haapanen "now, you didn't really expect tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu my views to have anything to do watmims research group with my employer's, did you?" university of waterloo
casey@well.UUCP (Kathleen Creighton) (07/26/89)
Mitch, WPCorp does not charge for upgrades that fix a bug you've encountered if you tell them that you need it for a bug fix when you order it. I would not be able to get an upgrade to "fix" a corrupted file because I've seen no evidence that the problem, which was introduced with 5.0, has been fixed. It seems to not be one problem but several.
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (07/26/89)
In article <5525@arcturus> mitch@arcturus.UUCP (Mitchell S. Gorman) writes: >casey@well.UUCP (Kathleen Creighton) writes: >>It doesn't *matter* that it's a "bug" or that WPCorp might eventually fix >>it if you're working on a 150-page manuscript with a deadline. >... And _I_ will bring up once again the sore point of software owners >having to pay for fixes. Being a programmer myself, I am well aware that >"there is ALWAYS one more bug," but I think it's just a bit too mercenary >to charge someone for the correction to one of your own mistakes! WPCorp, and other "user friendly" companies (which excludes most big names) will give you a free upgrade if you report a bug. I have received three WordPerfect 5.0 upgrades, and never paid a nickel (not even for the phone calls, which were 800 numbers). But there are other companies that you can report bugs to and you never hear from them again until they want you to send big bucks for an upgrade -- sometimes you can *YELL* at them, citing them selling defective software, and get a free upgrade. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
alexande@drivax.UUCP (Mark Alexander) (07/27/89)
In article <8703@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rcj@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Robert Johnson) writes: >How about GEM/3 Desktop Publisher? GEM DTP is not suitable for large documents. It's fine for four-page newsletters, but it just isn't as easy to use or as powerful as Ventura. It also needs gobs of memory. You usually have to remove all GEM desk accessories and any large TSRs or device drivers to use it. I also believe it's too expensive for what it offers. This may sound strange coming from someone who works for the company that makes it; I'm just telling it as I see it. I use Borland Sprint for anything serious, like manuals that need an index, table of contents, etc. Sprint will import graphics, but only if they are encapsulated PostScript. You're probably best off sticking with Word Perfect. -- Mark Alexander (amdahl!drivax!alexande)
doak@cadnetix.COM (Doak Heyser) (08/03/89)
In article <3223@watale.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: > - PageMaker uses Windows instead of GEM. We have a number of > packages using Windows, and it'd be nice to have a consistent > environment. As I understand it, Ventura will be available with a Windows interface Real Soon Now. You might contact the Xerox Corp. to confirm this. > - Ventura is *STUPID* and saves absolute pathnames in files. This > makes it a royal pain to move your files to another directory, > another disk, or worse yet, another machine. DUMB! Ventura isn't what's dumb here. From the options menu click on Multi_Chapter and then select Copy All. From here you can tell it where you want to copy the whole chapter and it will even create a new subdirectory for you. This couldn't be made any easier! Doak Heyser Internet : doak@cadnetix.com Daisy/Cadnetix UUCP : cadnetix!doak 5775 Flatirons Pkwy {nbires,boulder,ncar}!cadnetix!doak Boulder, CO 80301