A giggle from the Adobe website

[Robert Lauriston]

I think FrameMaker's docs are the least bad of all the authoring tools
I've used or evaluated.

Their biggest weakness is often complete lack of coverage of
higher-level tasks. E.g. there are no templates in the usual sense, so
how do you work around that? The sample files they've provided not
only don't embody best practices, they were apparently created by
people who didn't understand many of the (properly documented)
fundamentals.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Sharp, Amy
<Amy.Sharp at conocophillips.com> wrote:
>>  My personal feeling is that documentation from Adobe has declined, and is threatening to approach the Microsoft level.
>
> I think Microsoft has a leg up on Adobe docs, albeit a skinny leg. Even before Adobe bought the company, FM docs were, shall we say, less than robust. They remind me of open-source philosophy where developers wait for a user to document that an icon means means "crash and burn," not "save this file."
>
> If not for Sarah O'Keefe and Scriptorium, FrameMaker would have been abandoned a decade ago. Just saying.