Hot Stuff
Weekly Contest
FREE AKVIS Sketch!
CreativePro.com Podcast
Don't miss it! Updated every Monday.
FREE Mags for Creative Pros!
Creativity, Website Magazine, and more!
First Look at an Impressive QuarkXPress 7.0
Will XPress 7.0 be the upgrade that puts Quark back on top? Gene Gable spent two days at Quark's Denver headquarters to find out and emerged with this exclusive report.
Written by Gene Gable on July 25, 2005
Categories: Features
Related Articles
Related Reading
Photoshop File Support/QuarkVista: One of the things I hear cited a lot as an advantage to InDesign is its support for native Photoshop files. Quark added support for PSD files in version 6.5 which includes layer control and alpha/spot color channel mapping, but will expand on that in 7.0 to include transparency support. XPress 7.0 will not, however, support layer comps or export modified PSD files (which isn't possible in InDesign either).
QuarkVista, an image editing plug-in that debuted in XPress 6.5, didn't create the fanfare I thought it deserved. Quark looked at what its customers typically did to images in Photoshop, then added the most popular to XPress. QuarkVista's capabilities don't satisfy everyone's needs, but in many production environments Photoshop is overkill. In QuarkVista, you can apply filters (Gaussian blur, unsharp mask, add noise), adjust images (levels, curves, color corrections), and render transformations (rotate, crop, skew) without permanently affecting the original. Quark maintains that many of these actions should be made visually in the context of the page, and I agree.
In XPress 7.0, QuarkVista will become more powerful. (I'll cover the expanded feature list when creativepro.com reviews the shipping version of XPress). Nevertheless, I concede for those people who are naïve enough to insist on the comparison that QuarkVista is no Photoshop killer. The list of things you can't do in QuarkVista is staggering!
Expanded Output Options: XPress 7.0 adds to projects output styles that can be saved, applied to other files, exported to JDF, and accessed by XTensions. Combined with the other features of Job Jacket, these output files will make it possible for your printer (or the magazine in which you place ads) to send you a file that will automatically setup your document correctly. And you can apply different output styles to the same project, thus making it easier to print to various devices in-house, or to create multiple versions of the same project for different destinations.
PDF output, one of Quark's biggest weaknesses to date, will not only include PDF/X-1a and PDF/X-3 export directly from within XPress, but now has the ability to export multi-page layouts as single-page PDFs. Quark is still licensing the JAWS PDF engine from Global Graphics, and some of the issues around transparency flattening in XPress are because Quark actually creates a PostScript file first, then sends it to RIP in Jaws, resulting in the final PDF file.
EPS files from XPress 7.0 now support embedded fonts and single and multiple-file DCS 2.0.
And one small thing that will dramatically improve printing to non-Postscript printers: XPress now rasterizes placed EPS images to the appropriate printer resolution rather than sending the low-resolution preview file.
Palette Management: In XPress 7.0, Quark's solution for palette bloat is good. Palettes can be grouped, of course, and rearranged, minimized/maximized, and opened in groups. A unique feature snaps palettes to scroll bars so palettes don't disappear as you scroll through a page. And unlike in most applications, if you open a palette and it forces another palette to close (to make room), when you close that new palette, the previous palette will reopen.
A new measurement palette retains its familiar look but adds an auto-hiding button bar that considerably expands functionality and now has dialogs for modify, character attributes, paragraph attributes, and space/align.
The classic XPress measurement palette can now turn into other palettes by highlighting the new button bar (which can be hidden) which rests on top.
As part of Quark's OpenType support, a new glyph palette makes accessing special characters easy. A new OpenType invisible font lets you not only view spaces, but determine the type of space (non-breaking, em space, en space, and so on). You can also insert spaces directly from the glyph palette.
InDesign users will gloat that XPress is only now supporting some OpenType features and will sport a familiar insert-glyph palette.
What's to Come and What's Missing
In the can't-talk-about-it-yet category fall a slew of new features in the areas of color management, expanded image effects, layout management and synchronization, interactivity, and the previously mentioned collaboration tools. Trust me when I say the most interesting news is still to come.
I can't address what's missing from XPress 7.0 until I have my hands on the final product. And I'm also relatively sure that for those of you keeping score this way, Adobe InDesign's feature set will still be longer than that of QuarkXPress 7.0. But even so, I see in XPress 7.0 a number of things that will make current users' lives much easier and that will more completely open up production systems to third-party developers. That's the biggest issue for large publishers looking for custom solutions and aggressive automation. Quark has provided many hooks into XPress documents and the content (and specifications) that resides in them.
XPress 7.0 may not ship until the end of this year or early next year. I considered keeping silent until then because I cringe at the thought of being part of a PR campaign to build anticipation and stave off further customer losses. I admit I'm being shown what Quark wants me to see, but that doesn't change the fact that it's impressive.
By the time XPress 7.0 ships, I hope everyone can finally declare their allegiance and move on. While we've been arguing among ourselves, the entire market has lost value. That should cause more concern than how your type rasterizes when it's part of a transparency.
Read more by Gene Gable.
Share:
The Battle for Domination, or is that Abomination?
When founder Tim Gill left Quark in October 2000, many of the people responsible for QXP 3.31 and 4.11 left as well or were fired by Fred Ebrahimi and headed off to Adobe. The work of these ex-Quark engineers can be seen in what they helped accomplish with InDesign. What troubles me are two things. The first is the shipping of high-level jobs overseas to save money (let's not forgot what Quark charges for a new copy and upgrades). Plus the money they make from developers who make third-party Xtensions (whom they charge for that privilege). Sorry, but if you want to be a U.S. corporation, don't go outside the country for cheap labor and tax breaks. The second is what I got in the mail the other day. Xray magazine, which is nothing more than a giant catalog of third-party extensions that literally bring Quark 6.5 up to parity with Indesign CS.
To me, Quark developed a killer app right up to 4.11, and after that, someone (Glen Turpin? Fred Ebrahimi?) made the decision to leave all the actual time-saving, "cool" features to third parties. It had become nothing more than a vehicle for plugins. A high-octane word processor that barely handled tables and layers. QX-Tools did more and better than any release after 4.11. So, now they are under new management (again), and InDesign has woke the sleeping giant. And that, in my opinion, is why competition is necessary. From both sides. And I sincerely hope that no one wins the DP race. I'd even like to see a third contender. And please, Quark, dispose of the HTML nonsense once and for all. Create another program for web creation (God knows, nothing new has come down the pike in a while), but don't build the beast any bigger.
a sales piece
It is very hard to get excited about an upgrade that has no release date and that merely attempts to match the feature set of InDesign. I have used QXP since version 1. Once 3.2 came around Quark seemed to have gotten it right, finally, but that was it. Quark truly let its users know that it was aware of its monopoly; no presence at trade shows or any other support outlet. The advent of OSX was duly ignored, and simple modern OS improvements, such as drag and drop, never made it into QXP's outdated interface, while the company dabbled in overpriced multimedia and web design options. Even with version 6.5 the default typographic settings remain the same abysmal ones that generate simply horrible looking text. The bezier drawing tools are poorly implemented and counter-intuitive to those who use Photoshop and Illustrator. Simple improvements were only offered by other parties as expensive plug-ins.
Suddenly InDesign appears on the scene, and even the fact that plenty of users tried it out of desperation for an alternative didn't register on Quark's radar. Not too long thereafter, Adobe had it ready for prime time, allowing us all to finally switch to OSX and enjoy its thoroughly modern environment, along with all the features we had wished to see in QXP for years. It came with a great deal of liberation by allowing a natural workflow, instead of forcing users to adopt their creative habits to the constraints of poorly-designed software.
If the history of Photoshop is any indicator, I am not at all worried about what Adobe might do with its new superiority in the page layout arena. Adobe has treated its monopoly in the image editing software area with great respect for the users, continuously providing better and innovative solutions at a reasonable cost. If Quark had done the same, we would not be reading this meager apologetic account of what might be ahead: far too little, far too late.
If there is any question of loyalty, it ought to be posed to Quark. Where were they all those years when they were simply enjoying the automatic revenue, tormenting us with dongles and utter disregard to our needs? At the other end of the pricey help line?
This preview sounds like the author was writing on behalf of Quark, and still couldn't quite get himself to praise the piece of vaporware as requested.
The page has turned
With all due respect to my good friend, Gene, I smell a sales job. I'm sure that he is only trying to give Quark the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, but the question is, after all the years of neglecting their users, have they really earned it? Creative Suite 2 is real. QuarkXPress 7 is still vaporware. InDesign works, and it works really well. QuarkXPress is still miles behind. Should we have faith in a company that just fired its president, and that has a history of delivering new versions that are not ready for prime time? I made the switch to InDesign almost two years ago (after 14 years in XPress), and I wouldn't think of going back. Aside from everything else, I haven't heard anything about QXP7 to suggest that it supports the fully bi-directional cross-media publishing workflow that I need which allows me to generate both print and rich PDF, and which I have today with InDesign. And it will only get better once Macromedia is part of Adobe. Quark 7? Too little, too late.
Too Little, Too Late for Quark
As a QXP user since before it had a version code, I must say that the last few releases have been bitter sweet. I spent a good part of my pre-press career, flogging XPress over Pagemaker to all of our clients, now I have to sing a different song.
I switched to InDesign last November, and although there was a learning curve for myself (and my peers) - I must say I am converted. It would take a heck of alot of convincing to make me switch back now. The interface that takes you through the 3 most widely used pieces of software in the print world is seamless. I find the times that I am now "forced" to produce something in Quark frustrating. I wish that they could have been as pro-active as Adobe.
It's really unfortunate, but they (Quark) have lost yet another loyal user - to a superior product.
hw - ottawa
Not jumping ship just yet
Where's the loyalty? Like everyone else that's been in this business for the last 15 years I too have grown up with Quark. I remember the days where Quark could rotate text and Pagemaker could not. Quark was the best thing ever when it came to publishing. We all hated Pagemaker, especially once I started working for a prepress shop. Don't get me wrong I love InDesign and I have been right there with you feeling the pain from Quark's recent blunders, but where's the loyalty? Quark has always been there for us listening to our concerns. Sure they have been slow to react, maybe even down right stalled for awhile. But I for one will not disown them; especially after all of the years I've enjoyed success because of their software. Quark was there for us when Pagemaker was the thorn in all of our sides. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt here and look forward to this new improved Quark 7. Maybe, just maybe their back on track, I for one would much rather see a two horse race. There's always more incentive to improve when you're being pushed by the competition. Quark has found that out the hard way. I'm looking forward to the next release and I for one hope it's everything we want/need it to be.
A measured approach to improvement
I appreciate Mr. Gable's insight regarding the realistic approach to enhancing a great application. As a dedicated Quark user for over fifteen years, I look on with envy at some of InDesign's features but also with growing concerns of a monopolistic design toolbox(especially in light of Adobe's pending acquisition of Macromedia). Here comes the venerable workhorse Quark swinging back into the ring with some promising enhancements to keep competition healthy and foster innovation. I like the fact that version 7 offers improvements and new functionality, yet offers it in a way that will feel comfortable and familiar to veteran Quark users. I've written several times to Quark expressing my wish for a "print-only" version of Quark, and it appears that version 7, while positioning itself for on-line content development and an XML workflow, still has plenty of considerations and product development for those of us who use Quark for traditional print design and publishing. I'm optimistic that this next version will offer plenty of new features and enhanced productivity that will only make my day-to-day workflow more efficient and pleasing.
I'll believe it when ....
I'll believe it when Quark 7 is released, gets taken for a drive, ... and comes back with no bugs on the windscreen.
Andrew
Quark is innovating
As a longtime QX user (now ID user), I'm pleased to see that Quark is innovating. I agree strongly that features such as QuarkVista are very cool and I hope to see this kind of thing in InDesign someday. However, Gene also misses a few important points.
For example, InDesign has already offered an XML-based "document model" for a couple of years (INX) but hasn't talked much about it. Why is Quark getting the attention for their vaporware XML system now?
Gene's comments about the importance of transparent type rasterizing is very wrong: Quality is of the utmost importance when it comes to these features. It took Adobe 3 versions of their software to get transparency to work properly. I find it hard to believe that Quark will come up with something robust enough to satisfy creative professionals on the first try.
That said, the best news is that Quark's innovation and drive will help all users: those who are sticking with the old technology will benefit by 2007, and those who use InDesign will benefit because Adobe will be forced to leapfrog Quark yet again.
Quark has a long way to go.
I recently changed jobs going from InDesign BACK to Quark. It is very frustrating. Quark has a long way to go to clean up its current bugs. The table function (which I was excited about a few years back) crashes constantly. InDesign is much more stable. The fraction function in the type styles is great, but doesn't mesh with style sheets. Master pages are great, until you move something...I just hope 7 not only comes up with new features, but fixes the current features that seem to have got so far and stoped. The print world is Quarks bread and butter-don't forget that Quark.
The ease with Photoshop in InDesign and the package price make it a much more attractive change. Working in a company situation where the MACs are far outnumbered by PCs, the expense of upgrading is met with an 'ouch!' Why didn't Quark buy Macromedia and really challenge Adobe?
I would like to tell these things to Quark, but go to there web site and there is no one to tell this to (only praises of there customer service seem to get to them.) So please Mr. Gable, let Quark know that we are cheering for them but they need to so there part to support the print world.
db