Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantages of Several Common High-end Typesetting Software (II)

Because PDF files have been used extensively in the printing and networking worlds, the PDF flow may be a concept most commonly understood by users of typical page layout software. Obviously, both Quark and Adobe have spent a lot of effort on developing different PDF files.

Both XPress 5 and InDesign 2 have extensive control over the properties of PDF files, including the appearance of files, printing features, and multimedia structures. Although XPress must rely on Distiller, its PDF export function can control hyperlink actions and complete job parameter settings, as well as add elements such as page bleeding control. InDesign has the same hyperlinks, bookmarks information in its original generated PDF file, and can also control the print attributes of the file.

The real difference between the PDF flow of these two kinds of software lies in the way that the hyperlink is created. Both of them support manual processes, including typing in the URL bar the link text or graphics specified by the address or hyperlink. However, only InDesign software can automatically read and use hyperlink data from imported Word or Excel files.

InDesign's automatic processing of hyperlinks has received much attention from publishing houses because it can preserve the author's work and avoid unnecessary work due to page layout or web page creation. Although XPress can only export HTML from web files and cannot export from printed documents, hyperlinks to both software are stored in exported PDF and HTML files.

HTML flow: Both XPress5 and InDesign2 can export XTML, which is not a new feature. (Xpress documents formatted in the XPress 4.0 version - not a file structure, can be exported in the HTML4 file format. InDesign pages can always be exported as HTML files. Both of these softwares support cascading style sheets.) Among them is the Quark software. There have been major changes because of the introduction of a series of HTML document specific tools in the software.

XPress users can use this software to create many web objects, including forms, buttons, bouncing objects, scroll bars, and more. At the same time, traditional XPress tools such as text and picture frames and tables are also preserved to ensure that the old users quickly adapt to the new version. Quark believes that their customers, especially small companies, are willing to use this customized tool as a reasonable way to extend the network.

In contrast, the InDesign software's handling of HTML documents retains the basic features of the old version, users can save some of the appearance of a page, but there is no specific production tool for HTML files. This can be expected because Adobe has long developed a web design tool, of which GoLive is best known.

We tested these functions in both software and found that the resulting HTML page is suitable for most browsers. You can use Dreamweafver and GoLive software to open or edit the resulting page, but we are sure that some HTML experts will find some code is wrong. (In order to protect the appearance of a page, XPress inserts a small GIF file into this file. Both of these softwares can convert the entire block of text into a GIF image, causing problems with the text content being inaccessible.)

For many HTML editors, XPress forms and buttons must be integrated with the server application. This is a straightforward task for an experienced webmaster, but not for a professional design user.

problem lies in:

Although XPress has no site management features, it provides users with a friendly HTML authoring environment. This is similar to PageMill and FrontPage. However, we found that XPress users had to save two separate files for each document, one for printing a web page, and we were very disappointed. You can drag content text from a document for printing into a web page file, and vice versa, but there is no dynamic link between the two files. In the single-channel process of using web files for printing, the operation is relatively simple, but version control errors are likely to occur for larger processes. Quark may unify the format of print and web documents, but it has not yet been implemented. At the same time, the main strategy for the dynamic exchange of data between print and web pages is XML, which is the feature that Adobe continues to retain in InDesign. Direct HTML export is mainly for low-end users.

Compared to other web file formats, only InDesign software can export files in Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG). Quark suggests that they will also export SVG and Macromedia Flash (swf) file formats, but this may not be implemented until the next product release.

XML flow:

Both XPress and InDesign software are satisfied with their XML high-end cross-media production capabilities. InDesign can directly support imported XML, or add a tag element to the file that will be exported. Avenue is included with the XPress 5 release. The quark plus plugin is a new feature of XML import that was previously only available in tests. XPress keeps at least two separate and dynamically linked files: one or more for print or web documents, and the other is an XML file. In addition, Quark's "sequence" template allows users to create logical groups for file objects before exporting XML.

The main difference between these two methods is the use of DTDs. XPress 5 requires a DTD to create the correct XML. InDesign does not use DTD at all. According to Adobe, InDesign can also create good XML, but each XML is independently verified after creation.

Although it is not possible to thoroughly test the XML import capabilities of each software, the performance of the two software is fully consistent with its promotion. The ability to create, apply, and modify labels is relatively simple, especially in InDesign software. In both of these softwares, mapping from label to style or style to label can be implemented. However, soon people will find that XML is not an easily mastered process, so it is essential to make well-planned plans in advance.

summary:

Both Quark and Adobe have put a lot of effort into the extended cross-media production efforts and hope that their page layout tools will be an important part of the process. However, for many publishing companies, page layout will not become the focus of attention. Avenue. Quark and similar software are mainly manual tools used for multi-purpose printing documents, but they are not suitable for mass production. Both Xpress and InDesign belong to this type of manual tool. The development of core technologies still depends on large companies such as Quark and Adobe. For them, printing and web design are just the simplest applications.

Performance and Printing:

Finally, we review and summarize the overall performance of these two kinds of software as well as the user's feedback information, especially speed, system reliability, and printability issues.

Cross media:

Question: If you are both a print designer and a web designer, what is your experience?

The core of cross-media contention is very simple: a page for printing is completely different from a page for the web. Although this is a fact that has long been recognized by everyone, it has been endlessly debated by people. Software developers are constantly working hard and they hope to incorporate a large number of web page creation functions into the design tools of printed pages. Although this brings some value to the upgrade, it ultimately makes the cross-media production process a very linear process that is very limited.

Over the past few years, a lot of non-printing design and export functions have appeared in the page layout software. It is hoped that these functional software can become the core tool in the cross-media production world. It was envisaged that tools for the production of printed documents appeared first, followed by tools for non-printing design in the form of PDF, HTML, and so on.

According to Adobe, Indesign2 is clearly faster than the current version in almost all aspects. This is a fact and an important reason for InDesign's survival. Early users tolerated many of InDesign's poor performances, which were mainly caused by tasks such as high-strength printing requirements, screen display, and printing. If Adobe's advantage is to face this area, people's complaints will be resolved. However, because Quark XPress has never had a problem with speed, the "impact" of InDesign will not drive users to change software.

Another important advantage of InDesign is its excellent recovery function. The failure of the system, although it will decline after the test but will not completely disappear, it is an important reason for the decline in productivity. Unfortunately, XPress does not restore unsaved data well when such an event occurs.

Regarding the operating system, Adobe explained that InDesign must run under the operating system of the Mac, under the native (Carbon) local mode. Quark plans to do the same at a short press conference, but it's a typical version of the 5.0 release. Of course, this may be a challenge for Adobe, but there are still many advantages to wait for confirmation, such as: better performance, direct color management, better font processing, and protective memory.

In addition to cross-media, another key factor for page layout applications is: What is the output performance of software such as printers, proofers, RIP, and prepress applications? Because Quark has always been a leader in this area, people accept the printing performance of XPress software or use XTension to modify and supplement, so it has gradually become a standard in the prepress field. Even XPress issues and multiple work environments have been recognized by people. InDesign, on the other hand, has had major problems with printing in the past, which is why printers have rejected it.

With the introduction of new software, Adobe and Quark have begun to focus on the needs of printers. Quark software's printing dialogs, although not revolutionary, have also added advanced bleeding and OPI controls, plus a preview feature.

It is clear that InDesign has more features that need to be improved and more facts need to be proven. Broadly speaking, InDesign successfully created a unified printing environment, which in some cases exceeds the corresponding performance in XPress. We did not test InDesign's printouts, but users told us that Adobe has solved most printing problems, including Global Graphics' RIP issues.

InDesign's printing dialog is well designed. The dependence on the printing device is also less, unless it requires a printing device to complete the task of a particular device. We found that almost all the functions required for printing can be implemented in this well-designed dialog box.

In earlier versions of InDesign, people created device-independent PS files by exporting a prepress file. In the latest InDesign version, people simply click "Device-independent" in the print dialog as a PPD option. The DSC Postscript file format performs equally well in a variety of trapping and typesetting software and performs well. According to Adobe, InDesign's device-related Postscript (based on PPD) also follows DSC. Adobe also said that XPress's Postscript does not comply with DSC, but many RIP manufacturers adjusted their RIP to make up for this defect.

The only downside is that black ink is either inconsistent or requires adjustments to the edges or padding of individual objects. InDesign does not allow the user to control the black ink's overprint rate within the specified range, PageMaker can. To be honest, XPress software lacks this feature.

Another aspect of printing - color management is beyond our scope. Both of these software have a set of control functions