Sorry but... - Ataritox

FYI, Freehand is not a desktop publishing application. So you really should not compare it to Quark. It is a vector drawing program like illustrator.

(your correct about it being an unnecessary step to have to make a text box THEN select the text tool. I wish they changed that as well but you have to realize a lot of people are used to that having used it for many many years.)

Reply to This

Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 08:32 AM PST

Sorry but... - mongold

First, I don't have to switch tools. After creating a type box, I just started typing. Perhaps it is a preference? I tried it in both Quark 6.5.2 and Quark 7.0.2. To get back to the "pointer tool" just hold down the apple key. Its not really that difficult. Perhaps you shouldn't be writing a review if you are that ignorant.

Next, I am a little tired of designers whining about how much Quark sucks and how great InDesign is. There is a lot more to software than a pretty interface and lots of features. I can't tell you how many times I have cursed Adobe's implementation of transparency. 95% of the Quark files I get go through with no problems. Only about 50% of the InDesign files do.

Is Quark perfect, no, but neither is any of their competition. Rate it on its own merit.

Reply to This

Monday, November 20 2006 @ 08:15 AM PST

Sorry but... - smith9

I get tired of pre-press people writing reviews too — designers have every right (including the original poster) to give feedback based on aesthetics. We're DESIGNERS, we make a living based off of the assumption that good aesthetics make things work better. If you're having trouble with InDesign transparency, update your postscript or RIP software. I've been giving printers InDesign PDFs (with transparency) since 1.5 and have rarely had a problem.

To the original poster: I've been a designer for a while. I've been through Aldus, then Adobe Pagemaker, Quark, and am now in InDesign. InDesign is, in my opinion, much better than Quark. It is a page layout program and makes no apologies. It doesn't try to be a Flash-lite, or HTML-lite, it's just a page-layout program.

Quark hasn't changed much at all since 3.3. Their best new features have been in InDesign for quite some time. I don't think it's perfect, and I really feel Adobe needs some competition to keep it's edge, but I think Quark stopped being competition some time ago. The only people I know who still use it aren't comfortable learning new software.

Reply to This

Monday, January 08 2007 @ 08:26 PM PST

Sorry but... - hankgood1

Quark is great at what it does well which is multi-page documents. It's solution to text and picture box placement in a layout is, to me, the most sensible to use for anyone who navigates/constructs a page using numeric (x, y) coordinates. Text box links, page numbering, runaround are the best solution. Type leading, spacing, tabs, style sheets and indents are beautifully integrated into the program.

Quark sucks at interface. If you invest in third party xtensions (badiaxt.com) you can make it near perfect. Why they will not make the program easier to navigate I will never understand - people are correct when they say that it's as if the developers have never worked in the business. I think their reluctance to integrate pdf (an Adobe technology) really set them back.

InDesign is great for one-page layouts. I find their text box, picture box and text editing implementation to be frustrating to manipulate. Their pdf export, shadowing and interface/pallet design are what makes it hard to pass up. I would always prefer Quark to build a multi page catalog/magazine because it's interface is build for that type document. Conversely, I would use InDesign to build a single page magazine ad.

Quark can be made to be the better solution for me if they will integrate some of their xtension developer's interface ideas - but it might be too late or they might be too hard headed to do it.

Reply to This

Tuesday, January 09 2007 @ 07:15 AM PST