The only real reason to stay with QuarkXPress is the fear of change. Most people don't want to deal with learning something new, no matter what they say, and prefer the comfort of familiar tools. As a freelancer sho works with all major page layout applications, I strongly encourage anyone considering the switch to go for it! The investment of time will be entirely worth it. Don't spend another dime on Quark products. You'd be throwing your money away for the sake of staying in the comfort zone.
Submitted by pixeltech on Tue, 02/05/2002 - 09:00.
Quark may not be gone yet, but InDesign should definetly get a stronger foothold with this release. One of the best things is how open InDesign will be for improvement. I'd gladly pay the $100 for upgrades every year if they release every year, instead of waiting for Quark 6 in 4 years at $300. I think by then InDesign will be the clear winner. (Maybe Macromedia will have to come up with a challenger?)
To clarify:
"InDesign also offers vector illustration tools similar to those found in Illustrator, like pencil, eraser, and smooth tools. But instead of struggling with the mathematics of Bezier control handles, InDesign's tools are much more natural and easy for creative people to understand."
This is to say that they are easier than the *Pen Tool*, not Illustrator's tools. The drawing tools in InDesign are identical to the ones in Illustrator, so if you learn them in one app they work the same way in the other.
Sandee dismisses XML as a feature of InDesign and QuarkXPress too quickly. Sure, designers won't be typing up DTDs and content rules. In the same way, I know very few Flash designers who write their own scripts, or animation artists who can write decent Lingo in Director. I don't suppose Creativepro.com's graphic designers write the all site's JavaScripts, server scripts and security routines either. All these people have coding teams which work closely with them, and most tasks are eventually formulated into re-usable templates. So it is with XML publishing. On that note, InDesign 2.0's big advantage over QXP 5 here is that Adobe has at least tried to make its XML tagging interface easy for designers to use and understand. Avenue.Quark, by contrast, is more powerful but virtually unintelligible unless you already have a deep understanding of what all that XML is up to behind the scenes.
I agree with Sandee up and down that InDesign 2 is a very impressive piece of software and that the hardware limitations are the primary problem.
One comment is not correct, however: "In XPress, if you add a page to a document in a book, you have to re-synchronize all the elements in the book -- pages, colors, and styles." Not so; XPress 4 and 5 handles page synchronization just fine without synching other stuff. The Book features in QX5 are slightly more robust.
The major way in which ID2's book feature is better than QX's is that ID lets you print a whole book as a PDF file! Not so with XPress.
Thanks, Sandee,
David Blatner
author, "The QuarkXPress Book"
It's so easy to stay with the tried and true, especially when dealing with deadlines and clients (and prepress and press).
I never used InDesign until I took a placement agency's hands-on test laying out a small brochure using 1.5. The interface was so familiar from my experience with Photoshop/Illustrator/PageMaker and even QuarkXPress, I was able to finish the test on time -- and it was the same test I had taken the year before using QX.
So, on the design end, it was a breeze to learn and use. Many printers have been equipped to accept the files -- it's just that no one's been supplying them (just a small percent).
It's too bad the program's so bloated. In these budget-conscious times, it's unlikely we're going to go out and by new hardware just to switch software.
Yet, I'm hoping this release will be the one that generates enough in-the-field buzz (not just press buzz) to sway my art director to give it a shot.
Submitted by jellyroll on Tue, 01/29/2002 - 08:23.
Having been a staunch Adobe user for years, I have already ordered InDesign 2.0 upgrade from the Adobe site. Reading your article, Sandee, makes me even more impatient for it to arrive!
As a freelance designer, I aim to be compatible with as many programs as possible. Hence, I use Quark, Freehand, and Flash in addition to my mainstays Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. The continuity between applications makes a huge difference in the learning curve for Adobe products. This alone is a deciding factor but the real nuts and bolts of it are the easy to use features, color control, integration, and the dedication to fine type.
I especially enjoyed reading this column by Sandee since all I have to compare her writing to is 'Real World Illutrator 8' with Deke McClelland. The latter's often funny approach can make it interesting to read, or not depending on your outlook, but also make it lengthier and harder to wade through to get to the meat.
thanks for the insights, Sandee
The last paragraph says it all
The only real reason to stay with QuarkXPress is the fear of change. Most people don't want to deal with learning something new, no matter what they say, and prefer the comfort of familiar tools. As a freelancer sho works with all major page layout applications, I strongly encourage anyone considering the switch to go for it! The investment of time will be entirely worth it. Don't spend another dime on Quark products. You'd be throwing your money away for the sake of staying in the comfort zone.
I've got it and I love it.
Quark may not be gone yet, but InDesign should definetly get a stronger foothold with this release. One of the best things is how open InDesign will be for improvement. I'd gladly pay the $100 for upgrades every year if they release every year, instead of waiting for Quark 6 in 4 years at $300. I think by then InDesign will be the clear winner. (Maybe Macromedia will have to come up with a challenger?)
Clarification: InDesign + Illustrator tools
To clarify:
"InDesign also offers vector illustration tools similar to those found in Illustrator, like pencil, eraser, and smooth tools. But instead of struggling with the mathematics of Bezier control handles, InDesign's tools are much more natural and easy for creative people to understand."
This is to say that they are easier than the *Pen Tool*, not Illustrator's tools. The drawing tools in InDesign are identical to the ones in Illustrator, so if you learn them in one app they work the same way in the other.
Why write off XML?
Sandee dismisses XML as a feature of InDesign and QuarkXPress too quickly. Sure, designers won't be typing up DTDs and content rules. In the same way, I know very few Flash designers who write their own scripts, or animation artists who can write decent Lingo in Director. I don't suppose Creativepro.com's graphic designers write the all site's JavaScripts, server scripts and security routines either. All these people have coding teams which work closely with them, and most tasks are eventually formulated into re-usable templates. So it is with XML publishing. On that note, InDesign 2.0's big advantage over QXP 5 here is that Adobe has at least tried to make its XML tagging interface easy for designers to use and understand. Avenue.Quark, by contrast, is more powerful but virtually unintelligible unless you already have a deep understanding of what all that XML is up to behind the scenes.
Agree but not with everything
I agree with Sandee up and down that InDesign 2 is a very impressive piece of software and that the hardware limitations are the primary problem.
One comment is not correct, however: "In XPress, if you add a page to a document in a book, you have to re-synchronize all the elements in the book -- pages, colors, and styles." Not so; XPress 4 and 5 handles page synchronization just fine without synching other stuff. The Book features in QX5 are slightly more robust.
The major way in which ID2's book feature is better than QX's is that ID lets you print a whole book as a PDF file! Not so with XPress.
Thanks, Sandee,
David Blatner
author, "The QuarkXPress Book"
Time to try it out?
It's so easy to stay with the tried and true, especially when dealing with deadlines and clients (and prepress and press).
I never used InDesign until I took a placement agency's hands-on test laying out a small brochure using 1.5. The interface was so familiar from my experience with Photoshop/Illustrator/PageMaker and even QuarkXPress, I was able to finish the test on time -- and it was the same test I had taken the year before using QX.
So, on the design end, it was a breeze to learn and use. Many printers have been equipped to accept the files -- it's just that no one's been supplying them (just a small percent).
It's too bad the program's so bloated. In these budget-conscious times, it's unlikely we're going to go out and by new hardware just to switch software.
Yet, I'm hoping this release will be the one that generates enough in-the-field buzz (not just press buzz) to sway my art director to give it a shot.
good review of an interesting product
Having been a staunch Adobe user for years, I have already ordered InDesign 2.0 upgrade from the Adobe site. Reading your article, Sandee, makes me even more impatient for it to arrive!
As a freelance designer, I aim to be compatible with as many programs as possible. Hence, I use Quark, Freehand, and Flash in addition to my mainstays Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. The continuity between applications makes a huge difference in the learning curve for Adobe products. This alone is a deciding factor but the real nuts and bolts of it are the easy to use features, color control, integration, and the dedication to fine type.
I especially enjoyed reading this column by Sandee since all I have to compare her writing to is 'Real World Illutrator 8' with Deke McClelland. The latter's often funny approach can make it interesting to read, or not depending on your outlook, but also make it lengthier and harder to wade through to get to the meat.
thanks for the insights, Sandee