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!
QuarkXPress 6.0: A Safe Upgrade in Dangerous Times
QuarkXPress's perch on top of the page-layout heap has long been undisputed. But with increased competition from InDesign, the pressure is on Quark to produce an upgrade that secures its standing. Does QuarkXPress 6.0 deliver? Gene Gable reviews the Mac OS X version of XPress.
Written by Gene Gable on July 8, 2003
Related Articles
- Page Layout Tips: InDesign Techniques for QuarkXPress Users
- Creative Analysis: The Impact of QuarkXPress 6
- The Digital Dish: Looking for QuarkXPress 6
- The Art of Business: Gene Gable on Design Certification, Letterpress Printing, and QuarkXPress Training
- For Position Only: Switch to InDesign or Stick with QuarkXPress?
Related Reading
PDF Export
Quark fought this one for too long, but has finally given in and accepted that PDF is an essential output choice, though the near absence of PDF references in 6.0 documentation is certainly curious. The PDF export capabilities of XPress are rather basic (no PDF/X support, no security features, only 1.3 support), and are based on Global Graphics' Jaws engine (see Figure 9). Jaws, which Quark is licensing, is a respected technology, and unless something happened in the baking process, XPress should generate good clean PDF files. I exported several PDF files and ran them through Enfocus PitStop Professional to check for errors and nothing alarming came up.
Figure 9: PDF exporting is through a simple dialog box that gives basic choices. But no pre-selected standard settings, security features, advanced options like PDF/X, or any way to save re-occurring settings.
You can choose to down sample your PDF files to various resolutions, just as in InDesign or Acrobat Distiller, but there are no pre-selected configurations and you can't save PDF styles -- this is a real drag for multiple-use projects. And unlike InDesign, for XPress to make PDFs, you have to have a PostScript print driver installed. If you don't have an appropriate printer connected to your network, you'll have to create a virtual printer and select it (a bit of a hassle). For this reason XPress PDFs take longer to make than in InDesign -- XPress writes PostScript to the disk and then distills it. With InDesign PDF files are written directly to disk.
Whether from XPress or InDesign, I recommend that you or your service provider use a third-party application or service (like Markzware FlightCheck or Enfocus PitsStop) to assure that your PDF files are ready for print. But checking and modifying an XPress PDF file will be much, much easier than distilling it from the application format as we had to do before. And certainly creating PDF files for intermediate proofing, printing on non-PostScript printers, and markup and approval is now considerably easier. Remember, though, that you'll have to change the settings manually every time you want a different flavor PDF file. And you cannot write PDF to disk for an entire book (in the book palette) or all of the layouts in a project.
Printing Options
XPress 6.0 adds an "As Is" and a "DeviceN" option to the color output menu. When you choose As Is, each object's source color space is maintained and will be converted or managed by the RIP being used for output. These new features may seem a bit late, but they finally address the workarounds being used by those who manage color at the output device and those who need to produce both composite and separated color files.
By checking DeviceN, XPress lets you output blends, multi-inks, colorized TIFFs and other items as composite color, but also retains their color separation definitions (see Figure 10). InDesign gives more print bells and whistles overall (like the ink manager), and provides a print summary with many more parameters than XPress. And XPress won't print or create transparencies, fast becoming a hallmark of InDesign.
Figure 10: Quark has added color options when printing, saving PDFs, or writing to EPS. The As Is and DeviceN options improve the ability to work in both separated and composite colors. However, you can still not embed fonts in EPS files.
Pages are still limited to as small as one inch by one inch or as large as 4 feet by 4 feet. (InDesign allows pages up to 18 feet by 18 feet.) And XPress still limits zooming to 800%, while InDesign tops out at 4,000%. Somewhere in between is probably the sensible place -- I've run into the 800% limit numerous times.
Web Layout
Almost everyone has panned the idea that XPress will be used as a true multi-media publishing tool. The Web capabilities of XPress are not as full-featured as those in Adobe GoLive or Macromedia Dreamweaver. But I've been a supporter of Quark's efforts in this area, even though admittedly they may be too late, and they haven't done a complete job. Had Quark put its resources into the Web earlier (instead of into Quark Immedia or its ill-fated image editing tool, XPosure), I believe XPress could have easily been a favorite Web authoring tool. By now, though, most Web designers and producers have already chosen and learned an alternate, more capable program.
But XPress is now a basic Web publishing tool, and for those who are having trouble getting into the more complex Web-authoring programs, you may be surprised what you can do with XPress. Publishing to the Web in XPress is like doing page layouts in Illustrator, or setting type in Photoshop -- sometimes it's just easier to work in one application, even if you do give up some advanced (and you could argue basic) features.
The core Web tools in XPress came first in version 5.0. In 6.0 quite a few enhancements have been added, including the ability to create cascading menus, make two-position rollovers, preview and export HTML, and create better forms (see Figure 11). But you can't import the HTML you create in XPress back into XPress. The interface is unfamiliar enough that you'll need to consult the manual, but once you figure out what each tool does, it feels pretty XPress-like.
Figure 11: The Web layout tools have improved in 6.0, but are still behind those in more popular Web authoring programs. Here, the new Edit Cascading Menu dialog box. Xpress 6.0 also has rollovers now, but you can't print HTML layouts from within XPress.
Though it may not be adequate for most Web designers, I look at it this way: you buy XPress to create print documents and now you get a rudimentary Web design tool thrown in. By linking text and keeping Web and print documents together in Projects, it could be XPress is a reasonable alternative for Websites that are primarily "brochure ware." You can change a print document layout into a Web document layout and vice versa, though that's just a dump of content -- not an automatic conversion process of any sort.
Missing from XPress 6.0 is the ability to preview many Web actions directly in XPress -- you have to export to HTML to see things like rollovers and cascading menus. And you cannot preview pages in multiple browser versions to see how they will perform. There is no anti-aliasing, and you can't globally set the import resolution for graphics. And as mentioned earlier, you can't print Web layouts from XPress -- you have to export them to HTML and print from the browser.











Downgrade to 6.0...
Let me get this straight:
- a crippling activation scheme (I have copies of all my software and workfiles on a bootable external firewire drive. That way, if my main drive dies, I'm up and running in a few minutes. If I need to go work somewhere, I just pick up my drive, boot form it on whatever machine I'm handed and I have all my stuff, fonts, preferences, etc. I even work that way on the laptop! Seems Quark doesn't want me to work that way...)
- publish and subscribe is gone (major, major bummer!)
- can't save to version 4.0 (Ooo! Shades of Microsoft circa '95: "Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!" My main clients request 4.0 files, and I don't see them upgrading soon 'coz there's nothing in it for them...)
And they call it an upgrade? Sounds like a downgrade to me! Don't get me wrong, the idea of ditching classic sounds mighty sweet, but I don't see 6.0 working for me. Maybe I'll start toying around with InDesign again.
Quark and Customers
While the article may be accurate as a review, the fact is that Quark is once again taking a cavalier attitude towards customers.
Despite claiming publicly that 6.0 was shipping, the reality is that as recently as July 16, they are back-ordered and say it will be "20-30 days, maybe longer" before orders placed and paid for in June are filled.
This is a constantly changing date--two weeks ago, orders were expected to go out in "a week or so," so there is no reason to believe this latest date.
Activation woes Quark insanity
As a production person using Quark and InDesign on a daily basis I have serious problems with Quarks Activation ( I am still waiting to have it correctly activated) Quark 6 as a software program for the output of pages works perfectly fine but the activation thing is just plain madness it does not work as it should (ie first time) I have tried the internet option the phone and am now trying the emailing of the activation codes to quark after i had to fax the details to them (yes very hi tech). Once I have the program up and running it is fine however Quark need to wake up seriously if they are to remain at the top of the game they have to cop on that they are taking serious liberties with their customer loyalty. By the way we are now able to get more work from agencies as the designers are far more comfortable with InDesign than they are with Quark. Also an issue that my brother a trainee graphic designer has brought to my attention is that InDesign while it may lack serious inroads in the production field is making serious inroads in the creative agency area and the point is that at the end of the day is that our work comes from designers at the end of the day and they will go to companies that are using their software and can produce the artwork that they have created the way they want it to appear. I don't like the idea of Adobe ruling the world either but Quark are damaging themselves irrepairably in way that they are behaving towards their customers creative and production based.
Quark is second place to InDesign
I agree with most of this article, however, I can clearly see Adobe Indesign is leaving Quark in the dust in many, many ways. Best of all is that InDesign is less expensive than Quark to buy or upgrade. Spend less and get more with Indesign. Quark pdf features are a joke as well as attempting to make Quark a web tool. Quark is just too Quarky --- Go for InDesign. You will be much happier and much more satisfied with more cash left in your pocket.
Publish and Subscribe
This is mentioned very briefly in "What's Not There," and Sandee below is right--it will be a much missed feature. Hopefully this will be addressed in a third-party XTension. But compatibility with Adobe products like Photoshop and Illustrator is certainly one of the benefits of InDesign.
Quark Xpress is the standard
Love it or hate it, Quark is the standard. When it comes to reliable output, I still don't think much surpasses it, although InDesign may be getting there.
There are 2 things about the article that come to mind, one is the choices that an OS 9 using shop has, and OSX and Quark. Gene hit the nail on the head concerning choices that users have at this juncture in time. I came real close to abandoning my Mac based workflow, especially because all of the major software I need to function is available cross-platform. Instead, I've decided to continue on with a new (G4) Mac, going to an OSX machine and using Quark 6 and InDesign 2.
I agree with the comment about Tim Gill and the direction of the company, I think it has lost it's soul. I've been really fortunate in my dealings with Quark, when we were members of Service Plus, they always treated me well, especially during the 4.00 release disaster. I can't believe it has taken them this long to release something for OSX. Maybe they thought the same thing I thought, if the software is essentially the same on both platforms, why develop for the tiny market share on the Mac? Am I the only Mac user who feels like the poor relation when it comes to software?
Time will tell how well Quark 6 succeeds, I hope they take a clue from Adobe and throw in a few things for the faithful who have been using the software long-term.
No Publish and Subscribe editing of placed images
I've looked through the article and can't find mention of the missing feature that allowed you to edit a placed image in a program such as Photoshop or Illustrator.
This has to do with the fact that Quark 4 and 5 used the ancient Publish and Subscribe code to open placed images and then update them in the program.
Without this, Quark 6 has no way to launch the editing program, and then update the placed image.
This is a feature service bureaus and designers use all the time. Without it, the program is really crippled.