[Framers] Final note about Adobe Licensing

Tue Jun 26 11:01:20 PDT 2018

In reading some recent additions to this thread, I'm reminded that InDesign
is probably unsuited for creating help systems.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Ken Poshedly <poshedly at bellsouth.net>
wrote:

> Hey Pete,
>
> I can only wish that my company was open-minded enough to allow us to
> upgrade what we have and even use different tools if so required.
>
> Great explanation from you.
>
> -- Ken in Atlanta
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter Gold <peter at petergold.photography>
> *To:* Ken Poshedly <poshedly at bellsouth.net>; An email list for people
> using Adobe FrameMaker software. <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Framers] Final note about Adobe Licensing
>
> Hi, Ken:
>
> Thanks for the brief trip through memory lane.
>
> As to InDesign as a replacement for FrameMaker for technical publications,
> IMO one major obstacle to this is that designers, who are its target
> audience, are predominantly *not* technical-content authors. The
> FrameMaker community of users over the years are mostly technical writers
> who create original content; they also apply these skills to shape the
> content originated by subject-matter experts across the spectrum of
> technical and scientific professions, and submitted to them, into usable
> technical information. In other words, they're language experts, teachers,
> trainers, instructors, testers, information organizers, fact-checkers,
> editors and clarifiers, of information, and also technical-document
> publishers. FM has been the right tool to enable individuals to do both of
> these complex sets of tasks simultaneously.
>
> It's not that InDesign isn't a good replacement. Since version CS 4, its
> book and related text-control tools compared well to FM's. But, it's just
> as difficult to get InDesign users to learn, create, and consistently use
> paragraph and character text styles (AKA FM "formats",) as it has been
> historically with Word, WordPerfect, FM, and others. In fact, InDesign has
> named styles for tables, objects, frames (containers), variables, page
> layouts, and so on.
>
> But the foundational difference in the user base is that FrameMaker users
> have been primarily content developers and InDesign users have been
> primarily content presenters. Different skill sets, different intents. The
> foundational difference in the use of the tools, I believe, is that
> FrameMaker document sets are often created with the expectation that there
> will be future revisions, which informs their design, structure, methods,
> and organization. InDesign document sets are more often seen as one-time
> productions. So, there's a cultural difference about ongoing maintenance
> and revision, more due to the mindsets of the users, than to requirements
> of the tools. It is possible to progress from FrameMaker to InDesign as a
> corporate technical-documentation publishing system, but it shouldn't
> become mandatory because FrameMaker was intentionally killed off.
>
> Progress is always slow and fast, depending on the pain and cost
> associated with it. Years ago, in the InDesign community users complained
> that their print provider demanded they submit material in specific
> non-InDesign formats, such as a certain level of PostScript, QuarkXpress,
> PDF or NOT PDF, etc. "It's too expensive to update our time-honored
> workflows and equipment. List members said, "Tell your providers that there
> are other providers who welcome your preferred output and they are hungry
> for business." One year, my wife and I each received our laminated and
> perforated new annual wallet health-plan ID cards on letter-size pages. The
> lamination covered the full page - card and huge blank area - front and
> back. I suggested to the membership director that I received other cards
> whose laminations only covered the card area, not the full page, and, with
> rising health-care costs, asking the vendor to change could save more than
> a few bucks. "They say their equipment can't do that." "Say other vendors
> would love your business." The next renewals came laminated only over the
> card areas. He said they saved bunches of money. Of course, my rates stayed
> the same.<G>
>
> As has been noted more than a few times, even the cost of simply upgrading
> FM to the next release isn't trivial. Changing from one major tool to
> another, converting legacy content, retraining, etc., are beyond trivial.
> Staying with a proven workflow has lots of value. Nothing wrong with this
> model…EXCEPT WHEN THE VENDOR INVALIDATES PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED LICENSES!
> That's bad faith on a corporate level. Unacceptable.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Ken Poshedly <poshedly at bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> I may be a little off-topic, but here goes anyway . . . I've been using
> FrameMaker since 1998 when my company got version 5.5.6 and, as the saying
> goes, "I never looked back". We had been using WordPerfect for Windows
> (version 7?) and I personally found it "clunky" to work with, especially in
> doing two-column layouts (text on left with one-column graphics on the
> right; yes, it can be done, but it was never as easy as with FM). While the
> rest of the tech pubs world is now up to FM2017, my current employer won't
> upgrade past FM 11.0 (due to the "I-know-it-all" attitude of the guy who
> makes decisions about my group; another story for another day).
>
> Anyway . . . I recall in the early 2000's the fairly numerous posts that
> Adobe (which had purchased Frame Technology Corp.), was not really
> interested in upgrading it, but had gotten what it wanted (money from new
> sales and a huge fan-base) and was really trying to slowly let it "die on
> the vine" because Adobe really wanted to sell that fan-base on Adobe's own
> homegrown product, InDesign. There was always a periodic hue-and-cry about
> this and Adobe did wind up issuing updates over the years (although many
> still say the last good, solid version was FM 7.0). Adobe did actually drop
> the Macintoch version of FM.
> Some folks compare Adobe tech support with "customer service" by Comcast
> (the cable TV company). Solely based in India and sort of nonexistant and
> super-deficient even if/when can get someone on the phone line.
>
> So, nothing is forever and Adobe will someday probably deep-six FM for no
> good reason (just like NBC just cancelled the great TV show "Timeless",
> resulting in a HUGE online backlash about that. Lower-than-desired ratings
> don't seem to matter for other shows that still remain, however.).
>
> I'm old enough to remember when competitors compared their "word
> processing software" to WordStar by MicroPro. I loved that program and all
> its keyboard shortcuts (oh, wait a minute, that's all we had because
> mouse-pointers hadn't yet made the scene). Though it has a rockier history
> than FM, it is still used, but just barely. There's a great write-up about
> it on Wikipedia. (The FM Wikipedia write-up is not nearly as extensive.)
> And let's not forget the late, great Ventura Publisher which was
> distributed by Xerox but is owned by Corel since 1993 and is a mere shadow
> of its once glorious self before the Corel purchase.
>
> I wonder how Corel supports Corel Ventura (still available but supposedly
> last updated in 2002).
>
>
>
>       From: "Harding, Dan" <dharding at illinois.edu>
>  To: An email list for people using Adobe FrameMaker software. <
> framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>  Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 7:20 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Framers] Final note about Adobe Licensing
>
> Program software, yes. Customer support and licensing, no.
>
> At times it feels like FrameMaker is "abandonware", at least with respect
> to the attitudes coming from within Adobe... a begrudged necessary evil
> that no one there really wants the hassles of dealing with, hoping that it
> will just die and go away.
>
> -Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Framers <framers-bounces+dharding=illi nois.edu at lists.frameusers.com
> <illinois.edu at lists.frameusers.com>> On Behalf Of Shmuel Wolfson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 3:55 AM
> To: Peter Gold <peter at petergold.photography>; Framers - frameusers.com <
> framers at lists.frameusers.com>
> Subject: Re: [Framers] Final note about Adobe Licensing
>
> Why does everyone feel that Adobe is abandoning FrameMaker? In the latest
> version they redid the menus and added a shortcut to finding menu items.
> They also claim to have fixed some long-standing bugs.
>
> My only gripe is the high price for upgrades. But they do seem to be
> working on the program.
>
> --
> Shmuel Wolfson
> Technical Writer
> 058-763-7133
>
>
> On 26-Jun-18 3:25 AM, Peter Gold wrote:
> > These recent threads about licensing and related Adobe corporate-level
> > failings, and the associated sense of abandonment that's been voiced
> > by long-long-long-time FrameMaker users who represent a community of
> > talented technical authors and publishers prompt me to think "Is there
> > any next step that Adobe might take?" Well, if anyone at Adobe with
> > any power to communicate with the higher Adobe Powers That Be reads
> > this list (or if any members have contacts with folks who have the
> > ability to communicate with those APTBs,) how about floating the idea
> > that if Adobe's no longer interested in supporting FM and its
> > community of users, perhaps it's time to think about finding a company
> > that would like to buy it. FM might be only a mere fragment of a niche
> > in Adobe's spectrum of products and services and income streams, but
> > to a smaller enterprise, it could be a substantial business.
> >
> > Just another wild idea. Anyone out there? Bueller?
> > ______________________________ _________________
> >
> > This message is from the Framers mailing list
> >
> > Send messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com Visit the list's
> > homepage at  http://www.frameusers.com Archives located at
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/ framers%40lists.frameusers. com/
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/framers%40lists.frameusers.com/>
> > Subscribe and unsubscribe at
> > http://lists.frameusers.com/ listinfo.cgi/framers- frameusers.com
> <http://lists.frameusers.com/listinfo.cgi/framers-frameusers.com>
> > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com
> >
>
> ______________________________ _________________
>
> This message is from the Framers mailing list
>
> Send messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com Visit the list's homepage
> at  http://www.frameusers.com Archives located at http://www.mail-archive.com/
> framers%40lists.frameusers. com/
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/framers%40lists.frameusers.com/>
> Subscribe and unsubscribe at http://lists.frameusers.com/
> listinfo.cgi/framers- frameusers.com
> <http://lists.frameusers.com/listinfo.cgi/framers-frameusers.com>
> Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com
> ______________________________ _________________
>
> This message is from the Framers mailing list
>
> Send messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Visit the list's homepage at  http://www.frameusers.com
> Archives located at http://www.mail-archive.com/
> framers%40lists.frameusers. com/
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/framers%40lists.frameusers.com/>
> Subscribe and unsubscribe at http://lists.frameusers.com/
> listinfo.cgi/framers- frameusers.com
> <http://lists.frameusers.com/listinfo.cgi/framers-frameusers.com>
> Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
>
> This message is from the Framers mailing list
>
> Send messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Visit the list's homepage at  http://www.frameusers.com
> Archives located at http://www.mail-archive.com/
> framers%40lists.frameusers. com/
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/framers%40lists.frameusers.com/>
> Subscribe and unsubscribe at http://lists.frameusers.com/
> listinfo.cgi/framers- frameusers.com
> <http://lists.frameusers.com/listinfo.cgi/framers-frameusers.com>
> Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com
>
>
>
>
>