Quark ﬁnally announced their long needed upgrade to XPress 6.0. Have you switched to InDesign? Are you ﬁnally moving ahead with Quark?
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.
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?)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
… 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.
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.
» … 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 !!!
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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. ;)
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
> 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…
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…