cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Arbortext vs Framemaker?

SOLVED
Highlighted
Newbie

Arbortext vs Framemaker?

Hi,

Are there any obvious advantages/disadvantages when using Arbortext instead of Adobe Framemaker? I have not worked with Framemaker, and any advice as to what Editor+Styler does better/worse than Framemaker would be greatly appreciated (pricing, functionality, ease of use etc).

Thanks!

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Re: Arbortext vs Framemaker?

Framemaker is first and foremost a tool for building pages with. It never had any support for XML/SGML etc. in the earlier versions. It did have some robust automation features, and a structured way of working, which allowed it to be adapted to XML/SGML.

Arbortext started out as a tool for authoring content in SGML (and later XML). Somewhere along the way they bolted TeX on to it, driven by the FOSI language, and this allowed it to create printed outputs.

So the point is there is a philosophical difference between the designs of both systems. I believe that if you want to work with content, abstracted away from its actual presentation, then Arbortext is the best tool. This way your authors and editors are not thinking about how the pages look, but what the content means. This has real benefits when dealing with content that is being translated, profiled for usage (teacher vs student guides), delivered to multiple channels (EPUB vs HTML vs PDF), etc.

-Gareth

4 REPLIES 4

Re: Arbortext vs Framemaker?

Hi Rikus,

Framemaker is based around building pages, whereas Arbortext is based around authoring content. That is the fundamental difference. Arbortext can also be customised more readily than Framemaker, which is helpful for complicated environments. Finally, Arbortext is a native XML/SGML tool whereas Framemaker can only handle XML/SGML through an import/export process via a structured application and EDD configuration.

I believe both Framemaker and Arbortext have an equivalent requirement for user training, and usability. Pricing I cannot comment on as it depends on the business application, the amount of seats, capabilities required, etc.

I hope that helps.

Regards,

Gareth Oakes

Re: Arbortext vs Framemaker?

Thanks for the answer Gareth, it helps a lot.

Can you perhaps go into a bit more detail regarding Framemaker being based around building pages? How does it differ from creating page sets in Arbortext?

Regards,

Rikus.

Re: Arbortext vs Framemaker?

Framemaker is first and foremost a tool for building pages with. It never had any support for XML/SGML etc. in the earlier versions. It did have some robust automation features, and a structured way of working, which allowed it to be adapted to XML/SGML.

Arbortext started out as a tool for authoring content in SGML (and later XML). Somewhere along the way they bolted TeX on to it, driven by the FOSI language, and this allowed it to create printed outputs.

So the point is there is a philosophical difference between the designs of both systems. I believe that if you want to work with content, abstracted away from its actual presentation, then Arbortext is the best tool. This way your authors and editors are not thinking about how the pages look, but what the content means. This has real benefits when dealing with content that is being translated, profiled for usage (teacher vs student guides), delivered to multiple channels (EPUB vs HTML vs PDF), etc.

-Gareth

Re: Arbortext vs Framemaker?

Thanks Gareth. Much appreciated!