Jump to content

Talk:Adobe FrameMaker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This paragraph is written in first person. Moving it here from the main article until someone figures out what to do with it:

I believe that FrameMaker was introduced on Macintosh before it was released for Windows. One reason I heard was that the then-current Windows release (3.x) wasn't robust enough to support FrameMaker. A related reason I heard was that either PCs weren't powerful enough to run FrameMaker on Windows at that time, or that most PCs in use weren't likely to be powerful enough, whereas, most Macintoshes in use were.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.236.36.139 (talk) 2005-10-10T04:38:22 (UTC)

First released?

[edit]

There is no timeline before Adobe's acquistion in 95. Does anyone have a good timeline before that?

Just FYI - I added a whole bunch of version info, and a screenshot which I made and can vouch for. I did this mainly to bring the article up to the same quality as the Microsoft Word article.Skuld-Chan 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the external link section of the article, the link to "History of FrameMaker" documented the history back to version 1.0. Is that a good enough time line? Kowloonese 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Daube, the author of the mentioned History time line: I had correspondence with several long time FrameMaker users in the US to comile the history. It may be worth to read in the pages www.daube.ch/docu/fmhist00.html. Unfortunately some of the referenced information sources are no more available (e.g. the menioned e-mails). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.149.197 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XML-based competitors?

[edit]

Hi, I am interested in this paragraph:

As an all-in-one package optimized for technical writers, FrameMaker remains unrivalled. But for deployment in high-end technical publication departments, native XML authoring systems are starting to replace it.

What are these native XML authoring systems? How can someone learn more about them?

-d—the preceding comment is by Beagley - 2006-07-27T17:43:56: Please sign your posts!

They're talking about much, much more expensive alternatives like Arbortext Advanced Print Publisher. wikipedia could probably use a page on that kind of thing. but, on the subject of XML in frame, the intro section needs some work, it's not nec. "expensive" or "difficult" to do XML in frame.

-a—the preceding comment is by Sighrik - 2006-08-11T16:45:00: Please sign your posts!


Note: ***Arbortext's XML compiler: Epic Editor is commonly used by technical writers also.—the preceding comment is by 207.179.167.117 - 2006-08-30T16:28:19 : Please sign your posts!

NPOV?

[edit]

Does the phrase considerably better correspond with NPOV

"A few short months" is not NPOV, and is technically incorrect. There is only one short month in a year (February), so a duration encompassing a "few" short months is several years long. In its colloquial usage, not only is it not NPOV, but it's outright spin. --140.247.241.226 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article, at present, is rife with opinion. Needs a complete top to bottom edit or rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.144.12 (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

[edit]

I used Framemaker extensively in the early and mid 90s on both Sun and Windows platforms - I was also involved in demonstrating, selling and supporting the software - and I would question the accuracy of some of this article.

The first vesion of the software that I ever used was version 3 on Sun in 1992 - before Frame Technology was bought by Adobe - and this version already had extensive support for SGML, so the following statement would appear to be false "Adobe added SGML support, which eventually morphed into today's XML support."

But my main objection to the article is the implication that because it was a sophisticated, high-end product suitable for heavy-weight technical authoring, it was too difficult to use for a simple user wanting to write a one page letter. Actually this could not be further from the truth - the concepts behind FrameMaker were so simple, and the UI so sophisticated, that even though it was far more powerfull than Word, there were far fewer menu options and far fewer dialogue boxes. It is actually easier to use than Word for most scales of document. Where it lost out to Word was firstly the price, and secondly the lack of the usual Windows UI conventions - it has very limited toolbars and stuck to its own UI conventions that were consistent across the platforms that it supported.

The marketing was also pretty feeble - it was often hard to get brochures from Adobe even as a reseller.

Also, I cannot believe the statement "FrameMaker never really took off in the academic market, because of the company's unwillingness to incorporate various functions, such as proper support of footnotes and endnotes, or to improve the equation editor" because FrameMaker's equation editor blew all other equation editors off the face of the planet - it could even simplify and rearrange complex equations and matrixes. I used FrameMaker for my own Phd thesis and noticed no deficiency in the footnotes or endnotes. I am perplexed.

--81.179.127.223 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide verifiable sources for your comments? If so, modify the article and add your citations. That being said, my experience meshes with the article in terms of ease of use. The learning curve for FrameMaker is steep. The equation editor is very powerful, but under-used, even in academia. Other solutions (LaTeX, MS, etc) are far more common. As for footnotes and endnote, Frame is just fine if you are using its defaults. However, it's nigh impossible to get it to effectively work outside of those boundaries. So, I guess the moral of the story is "Your mileage may vary." However, with citations, the article can be modified. Blade 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- This discussion, as it is currently posted, appears highly subjective - 'ease of use' is extremely variable depending on your technical background, and your familiarity and comfort with the tool or even the family of tools. Someone coming from a tool in which you had to hand code a tag-based language would find Frame easier and more cumbersome in ways that someone coming from Word or Interleaf would not. We should strive to replace content that points out subjective failures (like 'ease of use'), with market data/statistics. I am a long-time user of this tool, and not a market analyst; however, I too disagree with many of the assumptions made in this article. For example, in my experience, the barrier to entry for users was the price. In the many and varied pubs groups I have worked in, and at the college I attended, price more than any other single factor determined the tool we used. KCCrossRowley (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode

[edit]

I think it is wrong to say that Framemaker has "kept up" with Unicode. As far as I can see, it is impossible to include a simple LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH MACRON (ā) without extensive character re-mapping. Am I mistaken? Please, enlighten me! Symkyn 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

FrameScript (http://www.framescript.com/), a product of Finite Matters, Ltd. gives FrameMaker what VBA gives to Word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.36.20 (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


FrameMaker → Adobe FrameMaker — The product is called Adobe FrameMaker and not FrameMaker. We have Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Premiere Pro. Shouldn't this follow a similar convention? —Remy Suen 12:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Neutral, I don't have anything against it, but something like Photoshop isn't an exact parallel because it's always been an Adobe product, while FrameMaker has not. Sighrik 14:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Other Adobe products follow this format, including products that were owned by other companies previously (see Adobe Dreamweaver). A redirect from FrameMaker to Adobe FrameMaker would be appropriate as well. Blade 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from FrameMaker to Adobe FrameMaker as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section very non-POV

[edit]

The History section has too much flourishing and praising copy for an encyclopedia. --KJRehberg (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not written to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.91.207 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better picture of structured mode please

[edit]

The picture of FM in structured mode doesn't really convey that fact to the uninitiated. Only the icons are different from unstructured mode. It would be better to show the structure view dialog superimposed. Nothing too fancy, just enough to better get the idea across that it has hierarchical and nested structures, yet is still WYSIWYG. Kkken (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

[edit]

Please change the link from [[AT&T]] to [[AT&T Inc.|AT&T]] for simplifying disambiguation, per Talk:AT&T#Incoming links to AT&T. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Corporate 12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Display PostScript, Motif, Unix

[edit]

I removed a sentence claiming that only NeXTStep and AIX used Display Postscript, while "all other Unixes used Motif." Motif and Display PostScript are two totally different and unrelated things, while both Irix and Solaris to my knowledge (have them both running right here) initially used Display PostScript. At some point Adobe ceased to support DPS but not only did they drop support, they forced their customers (Sun, SGI and IBM that I am aware of) to remove DPS from their systems, AIX included. That's where that DPSNXAgent thingy came from.

The DPS version works better, btw :-) 116.231.83.44 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe FrameMaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Mac support

[edit]

The info box says Framemarker runs on "MacOS 10.12 Sierra and above" which is a baffling statement. Framemaker has not run on MacOS for about 15 years. 2605:E000:1313:458F:C80E:A1BD:BA48:BA4E (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adobe_FrameMaker&oldid=1198039336"