What I have a problem with is the wholesale move to XML editors without thinking through the ramifications on how you will use, store, and access the chunks of XML content you are creating over time. I have no problem with XML and XML editors mind you. The thinking here is that moving to XML will – in itself – promote re-use of content (it won’t). More customers moving willy-nilly to XML.There are two main reasons: customer behavior within the enterprise and Adobe’s own marketing. In addition to XML editors, many of our customers are now using wikis for content creation, such as Confluence or MediaWiki.Įven more perplexing are the reasons for FrameMaker’s demise in the enterprise. Instead, more and more customers are asking us to create content using XML editors, such as Arbortext and XMetaL. I’d estimate that anywhere from 30-40% of our FrameMaker business is gone. I am sad to report that I have seen a precipitous drop in FrameMaker-based projects over the past few years. In fact, I’d say that a good 90% of our technical documentation business was FrameMaker-based. The most common conversion we did was MS Word to Adobe FrameMaker. The most common package we sold was Adobe FrameMaker + Quadralay WebWorks, from templates through indexing. Up until a couple of years ago, most of my customers used Adobe FrameMaker to create their technical documentation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
June 2023
Categories |