Every so often in the past, teams have moved from one publishing tool to another. Tools like WordPerfect, PageMaker, Ventura Publisher, and Interleaf lost popularity and were replaced by tools like FrameMaker and Word. Is it time for a new tool to replace both Word and FrameMaker?
With the move to XML, DITA, and other new standards, the entry cost for new tools is lower relative to established tools like Word and FrameMaker, since all tools need to invest to implement these new standards. New workflows are emerging in some cases, such as topic-based authoring and shared content, which give new tools a distinct advantage. The new tools can start with the new paradigm, rather than trying to migrate existing content and provide “backward” compatibility.
In addition, Word and FrameMaker have specific areas where they fall short, which provides the possibility for new tools. For example, Word needs a “Master Doc” capability that works, true catalog support with selective import of items that include page layouts and table layouts, and conditional content. FrameMaker needs better penetration across the company and easier methods for content reviews without requiring teams to buy Acrobat or another tool. FrameMaker also needs built-in scripting and automation, including UI customization, and a source file format that can be used throughout the organization with the tools used by other departments. Both tools could also use an integrated version control repository, such as Visual Source Safe (VSS) or SharePoint.
Open source solutions provide an interesting opportunity, but they are probably not the long term solution. However, a new tool could grow using an open source solution as a base. We are seeing several new publishing tools in the market space gaining support, such as Madcap Blaze and JustSystems XMetaL. With an open standard for the file format, rather than a proprietary format, one of these tools could be the next “standard” tool in our industry. It will be interesting to see if other vendors follow with new publishing tools to gain market share.
As writers, we shouldn’t be married to a tool. As hiring managers, we need to hire people who can learn quickly and adapt, rather than hiring for the tool skills of today. Otherwise, we could have the best team of BookMaster experts in a world that no longer knows what BookMaster and BookManager are (grin).
What do you think? Do you have a favorite tool from the past, or a tool you believe is the future leader in our industry?
I totally agree to your point of view. And, at least in our part of world – India, every job opportunity is filtered based on the experience you have on the specific writing tool(s); needless to say, they lose quality writers by keeping high priority on this parameter. And for that matter, aspirant-writers have to learn most of the tools to grab an opportunity.
Thank you!
I agree that there is a need for improvements in the authoring tools arena. My crystal ball isn’t always 100% accurate, but I’d wager that hosted software solutions will begin penetrating the market this coming year and next and that several authoring tools with financial backing behind them will remain the leaders (the same ones that everyone uses today). What will change is the skill sets of the authors. As older writers retire and new content creators enter the industry with new skills (writing modular content for reuse, for example or a mastery of integrating video assets with textual content) we’ll see even bigger changes in the authoring arena.
To me, it’s a matter of convergence — converging technologies, converging skill sets, and changing user expectations. Add to the mix advances in technology and you’ve got a major paradigm shift on the horizon.
Of course, I could be wrong. 🙂
Scott Abel
The Content Wrangler
I agree with Scott that we will experience a lot more convergence. If server-based, collaborative tools are to gain a growing share of the market (and they will) this will only happen as long as they use open standards to store data. One of the first question of my clients when choosing new documentation tools usually is: “Who is the company behind that tool? Will they survive the next 10 years or so? What are our options if this company no longer exists?”. With client-based software, at least you have to option to continue using it, even if it is no longer supported. With a server-based solution, well…