re: "As for the corner styles, they’re part of the box attributes now, so you’ll find those choices in the Modify dialog box alongside measurement,"
A much easier way to change the corner radius is from the Measurements palette, where you can also adjust all the other attributes mentioned. Quark has done a commendable job of moving almost everything from those modal dialog boxes onto the interactive Measurements palette.
Submitted by Jay J Nelson on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 13:03.
re: "Of course for any font that is all caps, or alternate characters, or otherwise doesn’t follow a standard keyboard layout, you still get gibberish. You can turn off the WYSIWYG display in Preferences."
You can just press the Shift key when accessing any Font menu and its WYSIWYG state will be toggle to the opposite state: If your preference is set to show the fonts in WYSIWYG, they'll appear as a plain list. If they normally appear as a plain list, they'll appear in their own typefaces. This is a great solution for identifying those goofy fonts.
Submitted by Jay J Nelson on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 13:14.
re: "you now set text on a path by simply selecting any drawn path and double-clicking it with the Text Content Tool. In my tests this worked pretty well, but because I’ve never been a fan of text on a path, I’m not sure I can properly evaluate the results, which typically look bad to me in any application."
For those of us who spend lots of time in XPress, it's great to be able to create a logo using the tools we have already mastered. For example, running text around a circle is a snap, and controlling the text is just like controlling any text in XPress. you can convert the text to outline the text if you like (either to tweak the letter shapes or to eliminate the need to include fonts), add some gradients, drop shadows, transparency effects, whatever, and then export it as a PDF, PNG, GIF, JPG, etc. Anyone can then use that PDF in their layouts in any application.
Submitted by Jay J Nelson on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 13:20.
Great to get the solutions/shortcuts listed below. One of the good things about a program that has been around a while is that there are usually multiple ways to do things. I think Jay and I agree that XPress fits the way a lot of people work and that, in the right hands, it's a faster and more productive tool than some other applications. One critical key is to learn the ins and outs (from a terrific publication like Design Tools Monthly!) that will help you master the shortcuts and more efficient ways of doing things.
Thanks, Jay, for pointing these things out.
Submitted by GeneGable on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 14:16.
re: "I feel the same way about Quark’s image-editing tools. Yes, they work well, and yes, they probably cover 80 percent of the image editing most non-photographers do. But if you’re already familiar with Photoshop, it's just as easy (if not easier) to switch to that application than to deal with a new set of tools in XPress."
That's assuming you already purchased and use Photoshop. I can think of two reasons why this approach makes sense: economics and creativity. Imagine a production shop with dozens of seats of QuarkXPress. It's possible that you wouldn't have to buy dozens of copies of Photoshop for those users. And don't forget: those users can do their image work directly within QuarkXPress, and see the results immediately within the context of the page -- you can't do that in InDesign, even if you pay for the entire Creative Suite.
Submitted by Jay J Nelson on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 14:17.
Sorry about the double-post. I was interrupted and lost my chain of events. And thank YOU, Gene, for writing such a thoughtful piece on this much-improved version of QuarkXPress.
Submitted by Jay J Nelson on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 14:22.
For me, the only criterion would be: does it work? Is it stable? Does the new QuarkXPress auto-save work in the same amazing way that InDesign has for close to five years?
QuarkXPress 4.1 was the last version of the program I've used daily. I switched to InDesign in 2003, forcing myself to use and learn it when my largest client announced plans to dump Quark.
Version 5 was useless, and version 6 was so profoundly flawed and bug-ridden that it sabotaged my ability to produce a book for a client who insisted on it. I haven't looked back since. I still miss many aspects of it, but every time I'm tempted to give it a try again based on reviews like this one, I recall my experience with a healthy dose of reality.
I remain furious that I had to waste thousands of hours of time essentially doing the vocational equivalent of learning to walk again, all because this arrogant company made increasingly crappy, expensive, and unreliable software, and we couldn't wait any longer.
So it will take Adobe screwing up even worse than Quark did -- if that is even possible -- for me to consider switching ... and if that were ever to happen, I think I'd check out Scribus and invest my intellectual energy and the value of my vocational time in the open-source software movement. Fool me once, shame on you...
Submitted by potpublstu on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 13:43.
My main complaint about Quark (and the main reason InDesign has become my page layout program of choice) is that double clicking a text box brings up a dialogue box rather than activating text editing (like almost every other program on the planet). This is a real time waster since double clicking is pretty much a reflex for me. Does anyone know if this was changed in 8?
Peter: Good question. In QuarkXPress 8 you have the choice to set the results of double-clicking. You can, as you prefer, have a double-click switch to the appropriate content tool (based on the contents of the box) or, you can have a double-click open the Modify dialog box. I should have mentioned this in the review as I know it is important to people. Thanks for asking.
Submitted by GeneGable on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 17:15.
I wish I could do more thorough real-world testing, but I'm afraid the only honest answer to the stability issue is to see how things play out over time. I do know that Quark substantially re-wrote the code for XPress with version 7, so that's always a little scary, but then sometimes re-writing old code is the best way to stabilize it. On my testing, I didn't have any unexplained crashes except as mentioned, when I tried to import large Illustrator files. I wasn't so lucky with version 6, admittedly. My suggestion, if you are truly interested, is to contact Quark and ask for some references to beta testers who have been using 8 in more demanding environments than I could ever duplicate in a review. And then call them and talk to them about it. I find most production managers at the larger publishing operations are more than happy to chat about their experiences, and typically make their concerns known to Quark (or Adobe as the case may be).
Submitted by GeneGable on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 17:22.
this upgrade looks so much like Quark is chasing InDesign... the ghosting of a cropped image is so InDesign... and getting rid of all the different selection tools... again so ID... and the "new" interface... mmmmmmm.... don't know... sure I have seen crap like that around before... like 10 years ago when developers started 3D'ing the GUI's... definitely not (!!!!) very appealing... maybe looks better on a piece of crap (errrr.... I mean PeeCee) but definitely not the quality of icon/GUI design found on the Mac... I am over Quark... and happy with ID
I wish you had addressed the issue of Transparency, which does not work in XPress 7 on a MAC, Leopard OS - not only drop shadows, but any transparent element when printing to a ps printer, or exporting as pdf, or even trying to save a page as an eps. You get a message about needing to reduce the flattening of a transparent element, etc. However, NOTHING you do helps. I can't seem to get a straight answer from Quark, who has ignored the problem. I love Quark. Have been using it since the first issue. But this problem RUINS my projects/designs. I now do most design intense jobs in ID. However, my 100-page catalog project is coming up and if I have to redo it in ID, I will most likely abandon Quark.
Submitted by lavitared on Wed, 08/13/2008 - 08:12.
A brilliant update I have been totally impressed by this version.
the Interface is great and the look of it has actually grown on me, when you actually use it for a couple of weeks you really appreciate the lack of clutter and over use of pallets that is Indesign.
The process of working is so much more fun, with a couple of tweaks I would happily say its far better than the current Indesign offering.
I do use both and don't share the childish prejudices that some hold towards either platform and I'm glad that Quark has finally got its act together.
I believe that Quarks past proves why its never a good idea to have no competition at all. If Quark were to exit the field then it would be very bad for the end users and the future development of Design software.
thnaks Sorry about the double-post. I was interrupted and lost my chain of events. And thank YOU, Gene, for writing such muhabbet a thoughtful piece on this much-improved version of QuarkXPress.
re: "As for the corner styles, they’re part of the box attributes now, so you’ll find those choices in the Modify dialog box alongside measurement,"
A much easier way to change the corner radius is sohbet from the Measurements palette, where you can also adjust all the other attributes mentioned. Quark has done a commendable job of moving almost everything from those modal dialog boxes onto the interactive Measurements palette.
Box corner radius also in Measurements palette
re: "As for the corner styles, they’re part of the box attributes now, so you’ll find those choices in the Modify dialog box alongside measurement,"
A much easier way to change the corner radius is from the Measurements palette, where you can also adjust all the other attributes mentioned. Quark has done a commendable job of moving almost everything from those modal dialog boxes onto the interactive Measurements palette.
Shift toggles WYSIWYG font menu
re: "Of course for any font that is all caps, or alternate characters, or otherwise doesn’t follow a standard keyboard layout, you still get gibberish. You can turn off the WYSIWYG display in Preferences."
You can just press the Shift key when accessing any Font menu and its WYSIWYG state will be toggle to the opposite state: If your preference is set to show the fonts in WYSIWYG, they'll appear as a plain list. If they normally appear as a plain list, they'll appear in their own typefaces. This is a great solution for identifying those goofy fonts.
Text on a path
re: "you now set text on a path by simply selecting any drawn path and double-clicking it with the Text Content Tool. In my tests this worked pretty well, but because I’ve never been a fan of text on a path, I’m not sure I can properly evaluate the results, which typically look bad to me in any application."
For those of us who spend lots of time in XPress, it's great to be able to create a logo using the tools we have already mastered. For example, running text around a circle is a snap, and controlling the text is just like controlling any text in XPress. you can convert the text to outline the text if you like (either to tweak the letter shapes or to eliminate the need to include fonts), add some gradients, drop shadows, transparency effects, whatever, and then export it as a PDF, PNG, GIF, JPG, etc. Anyone can then use that PDF in their layouts in any application.
Importing Illustrator Paths into QuarkXPress
re: "you can’t import Illustrator layers into XPress (or edit the files using the XPress drawing tools)"
That's true. I posted a technique for copying simple paths into QuarkXPress here: http://planetquark.com/2007/11/20/copy-illustrator-paths-into-quarkxpres...
Importing Illustrator Paths into QuarkXPress
re: "you can’t import Illustrator layers into XPress (or edit the files using the XPress drawing tools)"
That's true. I posted a technique for copying simple paths into QuarkXPress here: http://planetquark.com/2007/11/20/copy-illustrator-paths-into-quarkxpres...
It's an odd procedure, but it's fairly simple and it works.
Thanks Jay!
Great to get the solutions/shortcuts listed below. One of the good things about a program that has been around a while is that there are usually multiple ways to do things. I think Jay and I agree that XPress fits the way a lot of people work and that, in the right hands, it's a faster and more productive tool than some other applications. One critical key is to learn the ins and outs (from a terrific publication like Design Tools Monthly!) that will help you master the shortcuts and more efficient ways of doing things.
Thanks, Jay, for pointing these things out.
Image editing in QuarkXPress: more creative and cost effective
re: "I feel the same way about Quark’s image-editing tools. Yes, they work well, and yes, they probably cover 80 percent of the image editing most non-photographers do. But if you’re already familiar with Photoshop, it's just as easy (if not easier) to switch to that application than to deal with a new set of tools in XPress."
That's assuming you already purchased and use Photoshop. I can think of two reasons why this approach makes sense: economics and creativity. Imagine a production shop with dozens of seats of QuarkXPress. It's possible that you wouldn't have to buy dozens of copies of Photoshop for those users. And don't forget: those users can do their image work directly within QuarkXPress, and see the results immediately within the context of the page -- you can't do that in InDesign, even if you pay for the entire Creative Suite.
Oops, and thanks
Sorry about the double-post. I was interrupted and lost my chain of events. And thank YOU, Gene, for writing such a thoughtful piece on this much-improved version of QuarkXPress.
Stability and reliability
For me, the only criterion would be: does it work? Is it stable? Does the new QuarkXPress auto-save work in the same amazing way that InDesign has for close to five years?
QuarkXPress 4.1 was the last version of the program I've used daily. I switched to InDesign in 2003, forcing myself to use and learn it when my largest client announced plans to dump Quark.
Version 5 was useless, and version 6 was so profoundly flawed and bug-ridden that it sabotaged my ability to produce a book for a client who insisted on it. I haven't looked back since. I still miss many aspects of it, but every time I'm tempted to give it a try again based on reviews like this one, I recall my experience with a healthy dose of reality.
I remain furious that I had to waste thousands of hours of time essentially doing the vocational equivalent of learning to walk again, all because this arrogant company made increasingly crappy, expensive, and unreliable software, and we couldn't wait any longer.
So it will take Adobe screwing up even worse than Quark did -- if that is even possible -- for me to consider switching ... and if that were ever to happen, I think I'd check out Scribus and invest my intellectual energy and the value of my vocational time in the open-source software movement. Fool me once, shame on you...
Double click to edit type
My main complaint about Quark (and the main reason InDesign has become my page layout program of choice) is that double clicking a text box brings up a dialogue box rather than activating text editing (like almost every other program on the planet). This is a real time waster since double clicking is pretty much a reflex for me. Does anyone know if this was changed in 8?
Double-Click Results
Peter: Good question. In QuarkXPress 8 you have the choice to set the results of double-clicking. You can, as you prefer, have a double-click switch to the appropriate content tool (based on the contents of the box) or, you can have a double-click open the Modify dialog box. I should have mentioned this in the review as I know it is important to people. Thanks for asking.
Stability Issues
I wish I could do more thorough real-world testing, but I'm afraid the only honest answer to the stability issue is to see how things play out over time. I do know that Quark substantially re-wrote the code for XPress with version 7, so that's always a little scary, but then sometimes re-writing old code is the best way to stabilize it. On my testing, I didn't have any unexplained crashes except as mentioned, when I tried to import large Illustrator files. I wasn't so lucky with version 6, admittedly. My suggestion, if you are truly interested, is to contact Quark and ask for some references to beta testers who have been using 8 in more demanding environments than I could ever duplicate in a review. And then call them and talk to them about it. I find most production managers at the larger publishing operations are more than happy to chat about their experiences, and typically make their concerns known to Quark (or Adobe as the case may be).
this upgrade looks so much
this upgrade looks so much like Quark is chasing InDesign... the ghosting of a cropped image is so InDesign... and getting rid of all the different selection tools... again so ID... and the "new" interface... mmmmmmm.... don't know... sure I have seen crap like that around before... like 10 years ago when developers started 3D'ing the GUI's... definitely not (!!!!) very appealing... maybe looks better on a piece of crap (errrr.... I mean PeeCee) but definitely not the quality of icon/GUI design found on the Mac... I am over Quark... and happy with ID
Transparency
I wish you had addressed the issue of Transparency, which does not work in XPress 7 on a MAC, Leopard OS - not only drop shadows, but any transparent element when printing to a ps printer, or exporting as pdf, or even trying to save a page as an eps. You get a message about needing to reduce the flattening of a transparent element, etc. However, NOTHING you do helps. I can't seem to get a straight answer from Quark, who has ignored the problem. I love Quark. Have been using it since the first issue. But this problem RUINS my projects/designs. I now do most design intense jobs in ID. However, my 100-page catalog project is coming up and if I have to redo it in ID, I will most likely abandon Quark.
Transparency in Quark 7 and Leopard
I've checked with Quark and there are no known issues that should be causing transparency issues in XPress 7 on Leopard. They suggest checking:
http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/resourcecenter/transparency.html
Anyone using XPress with Leopard should be sure to run the latest Quark updates to XPress, at least through 7.31.
There was never a "version 4.2"
was there?
QuarkXpress impresses
A brilliant update I have been totally impressed by this version.
the Interface is great and the look of it has actually grown on me, when you actually use it for a couple of weeks you really appreciate the lack of clutter and over use of pallets that is Indesign.
The process of working is so much more fun, with a couple of tweaks I would happily say its far better than the current Indesign offering.
I do use both and don't share the childish prejudices that some hold towards either platform and I'm glad that Quark has finally got its act together.
I believe that Quarks past proves why its never a good idea to have no competition at all. If Quark were to exit the field then it would be very bad for the end users and the future development of Design software.
thnaks
thnaks Sorry about the double-post. I was interrupted and lost my chain of events. And thank YOU, Gene, for writing such muhabbet a thoughtful piece on this much-improved version of QuarkXPress.
Measurements palette
re: "As for the corner styles, they’re part of the box attributes now, so you’ll find those choices in the Modify dialog box alongside measurement,"
A much easier way to change the corner radius is sohbet from the Measurements palette, where you can also adjust all the other attributes mentioned. Quark has done a commendable job of moving almost everything from those modal dialog boxes onto the interactive Measurements palette.