Archive through June 12, 2003

Joe Pemberton's picture

Quark finally announced their long needed
upgrade to XPress 6.0.

Have you switched to InDesign?

Are you finally moving ahead with Quark?

eolson's picture

So that's it...
No OpenType.
I love InDesign, but almost nobody uses it. I wonder
what this means for OT? Maybe it will just be a file
format without features.

plainclothes's picture

what is with those tiny little screen shots on the XP 6
"first look" page!? are they trying to hide something?
they certainly aren't providing much in the way of
meaningful product info.

regardless, Quark has made it clear that they are
disinterested with customer support, designers, the
Mac, and Unicode. while I admire their unabashed
arrogance, I have completely written them off for future
upgrades. unfortunately, I'm still working with OS 9 and
QXP 4 while I await a full switch to X.

by the end of the year, I will be running OS X and the
full Adobe arsenal (PS, AI, ID, and Acrobat) in their most
recent incarnations. I have always found Adobe to be a
reliable and design-focused company. it is encouraging
to know that they have been extraordinarily successful
as such.

the design community has a fantastic assest in
InDesign. I hope that the majority will begin to
recognize this and support Adobe's diligent efforts.

(is my distaste for Quark clear?)

keith_tam's picture

Has anyone had experience outputting film (or computer-to-plate) from InDesign? Is there anything that I'd need to know? Any glitches or anything? How about outputting from PDF files created by InDesign? How does trapping work with PDF?

hdschellnack's picture

Man, I hope more people switch to ID. Although OpenType isn't the most democratic format right now, the upsides of the format are just dandy with me, text-setting hasn't been as much fun in years.
And as Adobe and URW and Lino and some other companies are making the switch to OTF and others, like House and Emigre sloooowly trying their hands at the extended possibilities of that format as well, I think Quark will either include OTF or involuntary give Adobe a marketing bonus.

Quark only survives because people are so used to it. I have worked with both systems and as of ID 1.5 Adobe has far surpassed Quark in my opinion.

hdschellnack's picture

Keith, I use InDesign and Acrobat Distiller -- it's a perfect combination Exported PDF works okay (better than any otheer direct-to-PDF-export, the EPS-Export is also nice), but Distiller still is the safest and most flexible way to do it. Since I work with InDesign and on Win-based workstations, I have preferred PDF for well over five years now, when most printersor film-outputters didn't even accept them. Thanks to Computer-to-plate that has changed. PDF is the best way to get your data to the outputter and InDesign+Distiller is a Killer combination.

eolson's picture

Many type people seem to love InDesign. Fantastic.
But we're talking about a work flow issue here. Quark
is central to the fabric of publishing almost everywhere
so switching (especially now with native X Quark) is a
big deal. Most people won't bother. But I really hope I'm wrong.

keith_tam's picture

I've only been using InDesign 2.0 since last August. I really love it for all the OpenType features. I've only been using it for small and simple 1-2 page jobs though, so I don't know how well it works for more complex colour stuff.

jfp's picture

I have heard that the pretty big Publicis company in France Switched to Indesign.

As John Hudson pointed out ,couple of months ago, Quark guys came a day to Unicode conference to say they will never support this silly Unicode stuff. How stupid how they are! I really don't know how they will manage xml in the future without Unicode.

At my own little user experience, I have used xml import for dictionnary layout in Indesign, it worked correctly (not perfect, but more because the xml wasn't set up correctly and because I lack of experience), mainly a set up of Style sheet, et voil

typotect's picture

I finally downloaded a trial copy of inDesign a couple of months back and I've never opened quark since. Aside from being vastly more intuitive than quark, the type setting and style sheet features are top notch. Also, no more bitmapped fonts. Precise letterspacing and kerning were impossible on screen in Quark because of the terrible display of most T1 fonts. ID does a much better job. Finally, the collect for output features of ID are a thousand times better than Quark, though perhaps a topic of disagreement among type designers. ID actually collects your fonts upon your request. (You do get a dialog box warning you that you may be in violation of copyright by doing so) And if you don't want to send your fonts, you can convert them to outlines. Another ID only feature.

Needless to say, I'm sold. I hate to see the market dominated by a goliath such as adobe, but as long as quark keeps developing such an inferior product, adobe it shall be.

hdschellnack's picture

>How can I be sure InD can do
>No one uses InDesign.
I always wonder about designers who are so inflexible that they don't wanna switch to a new, better tool.

PYMadlon's picture

I will cast a blind eye to any Quark development in the future. Quark let me down over 5 or 6 years ago and I've been forced to use them because of their stranglehold on the industry, but Adobe InDesign has given me a taste of freedom, and have given page layout the overhaul that Quark has needed since the late 90's.

I'm still learning the finer points of InDesign, but nothing will distract me from it. Adobe has proven its commitment to the design community over and over for years. Plus, Adobe most of the other application I use in my print work. Why switch to another system, another GUI, another product, to hold it all together?

lettertiep's picture

shouldn't we switch the name of this topic to 'Praise InDesign'?
:-)
One of the great things about InDesign is that it saves your *ss alot. Although OS9 regulary crashes the hell out of my mac I never lost any work, in almost 3 years.
It is a joy to use.

jfp's picture

Last summer, I have encounters some crashes and lost of files with the 9 and Indesign 1.5.2, perhaps, because the files came from a switch, time to time via email between several people? I will never know.

The file who have crashed: when it open again lost some part of the layout, rules and so on, grrr. Very frustratring.

Indeed, this never happened again with the Indesign 2.

PYMadlon's picture

I'm all for the name change, though I prefer "Trash Quark." That would be better than "Gladiator Fight," which seems to be the name of other threads I've seen lately on Typophile.

Yes, Doc Protection is a Godsend. I wish all Adobe products were so foolproof, for no one is as foolish as I.

hdschellnack's picture

The downside of the file restauration management of ID (which, at least partially was already one of the nicer features of Pagemaker) is that whenever I work in Quark or Freehand I forget that THEY DO NOT HAVE something along those lines. So you experiment more, save less often inbetween, and when it crashes, it's gone for good. No prob with ID, but on Freehand you have no chance of retrieving your designs. FH, even in the MX version, sucks compared to Indesign.
Photoshop could use somthing like this as well, especially as they DO save intermediary files on your harddisk, so restoring them after a crash should be rrrrrelatively simple to program.

lettertiep's picture

... don't forget Illustrator 10, i've lost a lot of work thanx to all its crashiness...

Hmm another plus for InDesign is the 'after-sales-care.' But maybe it's not fair to compare that with quack.

:-)

sean's picture

I've been a staunch supporter of Quark for
years. Even through this whole ID verses
Quark debacle I have heard myself saying
many times "I'll never leave Quark it is so
great". In truth, it has been great to me with
few complaints. Most of my work in the past
has been for magazines, annual reports and
long brochure design and production. Quark
has served me well throughout.

At work, I am currently using Quark 5 and OS
9.2. At home, within the last few weeks I have
moved one of my machines over to OSX and ID.

Lord, I have seen the light.

While I am still transitioning into ID (and OS X
for that matter) I am really, and I mean really,
impressed. There are so many more options in ID.
I will never go back and work is like
going back in time.

Quark, I guess it was just one of those
things... one of those crazy flings...

I'll never go to 6.

Miss Tiffany's picture

>> ... don't forget Illustrator 10, i've lost a lot of work thanx to all its crashiness... <<

No doubt!!! I certainly hope Adobe is going to implement some of their cleverness from InDesign 2.0 into Illustrator 11 !!!

Miss Tiffany's picture

> At my job, we often design low budget stuff in two > Pantone spot colors. While Quark can mix those > colors, provide satisfying screen preview and output > those files on film perfectly, InDesign doesn't know > how to handle this, to my disappointment.

Yves. You should send this into Adobe as a wishlist item. This is a really good feature. Hmmm. 1000 pts InDesign v. 1 pt. Quark.

:-)

hdschellnack's picture

Yeah, that is one big minus. Although I mostly found workarounds with mixing Cyan and Magenta or something and using those channels for the seperations, it would be nice to have fully mixable Pantone spot colours with accurate screen preview.

I also wish that they would include some option to change the size of indivudal spaces, at least the pagewidth -- that would be good for fold-up-pages and Leporellos. ALso, it would be nice to have an option that makes the table borders and cells visible even if you do not have an outline (and the handling of adding outlines to the cells could be a bit easier, imo).

The shift key thing I'm used to from FH, so that never bothered me at all. I also took the time to synchronize my keyboard shortcuts in FH/Shop/ID, which makes life THAT much easier afterwards.
:-D.

Joe Pemberton's picture

Did someone suggest that Quark 6 doesn't support OpenType?
Will they in the future?

_________
Related Tangent:

It's very interesting to track Adobe versus Quark and
Macromedia.

It seems pretty clear from Macromedia's moves in the last
year (buying Cold Fusion, launching MX, pushing Flash to a
much richer, application development tool) that they're
much more interested in creating apps for the development
of enterprise-level web sites. It's a smart move for
Macromedia, but it's just interesting to see it happen. I
wonder if Freehand will eventually go the way of XRes and
Fontographer.

Then there's Quark. They have a huge foothold in the
publishing industry (not just graphic design). They've taken
XML and run with it. Maybe ID can do that too - I'm not
sure - but I can't see these old, giant companies switching
to ID as easily as an agency or a design firm or even a
school could.

Stephen Coles's picture

The set of common InDesign concerns/myths are:

"No one uses InDesign."
Every designer I've introduced to InDesign has switched to
it for the majority of their work. Quark definitely still has
the lionshare of the market but they've been the only game in
town for years. The broad adoption of InD has be relatively speedy.

"Quark is the proven standard. How can I be sure InD can do
everything that Quark can?"

I've designed and output a 72-page full-color catalog with InD.
Not only can it do everything Quark can do, but I have
no doubt InD's superior UI and features saved me days on
the production of this piece. But don't take my lousy word
for it, take it from these folks. (Fossil and Glamour UK are
not small fry.)

"No one will output InDesign files."
Bullpoop! I live in a pretty small market (Salt Lake City)
and we haven't come across one service bureau or
press that would refuse an InDesign document. Sure, some
will grimace and gripe a bit, but it's getting smoother now
that more and more local designers are moving to InD.
Moreover, almost everyone takes PDFs these days, and InD's
PDF export is far cleaner and quicker than Quark's.

Joe Pemberton's picture

Strange, apparently there's no Quark 6 demo available yet.

Re: PDFs
InDesign to PDF is like butter (I guess they wrote the book
on it, so it better be). No more color mismatches on screen.
No more jagged vector art in my PDFs. No more
unexplainable, missing 'placed' artwork.

Bald Condensed's picture

> You can do everything in Indesign.

While I am a fierce advocate of InDesign and use
it since the infamous version 1.0, I must disagree
on one point: it cannot do everything Quark does.

At my job, we often design low budget stuff in two
Pantone spot colors. While Quark can mix those
colors, provide satisfying screen preview and output
those files on film perfectly, InDesign doesn't know
how to handle this, to my disappointment.

I'm pretty sure people can come up with some more
advantages of QuarkXPress over InDesign. I actually
had a hilarious time reading a magazine review where
the author went as far as extolling the "Straight Line
Tool" which draws only horizontal or vertical lines
(as opposed to holding down the friggin' 'shift' key)
as an advantage of Quark. It all sounded a bit sad.

This being said, I do all my page lay-outs in Indesign,
from simple one-page things to multi-chaptered indexed
catalogues with tables of contents and all the trimmings.
No way am I going to support this overpriced dinosaur
of a program.

Bald Condensed's picture

> The downside of the file restauration management of ID
(...) is that whenever I work in Quark (...) I forget that
THEY DO NOT HAVE something along those lines.


I don't know what you mean precisely with 'file restoration',
but Quark has an automatic back-up feature which lets the
program save the file you're working on at regular intervals,
and even allows you to make indexed extra back-up copies
in case the last saved version gets corrupted. I can't lose
more than 15 minutes of work when my computer crashes.

This sounds SO silly, me 'defending' Quark's (very few)
virtues while at work I'm the one nagging everybody about
switching to InDesign for good. I hope my boss never stumbles
upon this thread. ;)

Bald Condensed's picture

I mostly found workarounds with mixing Cyan and Magenta
or something and using those channels for the separations


That's exactly what we used to do in QuarkXPress 3, AND in
Illustrator. =D

Bald Condensed's picture

> The shift key thing I'm used to from FH, so that never
bothered me at all.


You're right, every graphic program supports that. That's why
it sounded so desperate in that silly article. "Look how much
better QuarkXPress is: it has a nifty 'Straight Line Tool'. No
need to simultaneously press down that cumbersome 'shift'-key
when drawing horizontal or vertical lines!"

Gimme a break...

hdschellnack's picture

I haven't even upgraded to QXP5... I work with InDesign Full-Time now, whenever a client forces me to use QXP, my price goes up because it just takes THAT much longer to get things done right. ID has very few flaws left while Quark more and more feels caught between the weight of old age and the massive lack of innovative ideas. Integration, reliability, creativity, speed... ID is my first choice in Layut and even in smaller stuff I once did in Freehand. What Photoshop has become in terms of Imageediting, ID has become in terms of designing pages...

Syndicate content Syndicate content