🚀 go-pugleaf

Will the FM user go the way of the dodo? 

I�ve been participating in the discussions of three threads: �FM 7: A sad update�, starting with message 41; �Does FM 7 have multiple undo?� starting with message 20; and �The best alternative to FM�, which I started. 

In these discussions, I�m surprised to discover that some FM users feel no need for Adobe to advance the productivity tools of FM in obvious ways, the most obvious being multiple undo. In attempting to explain this, I�ve come up with a theory that I wish to obtain feedback on. 

The theory is based on the concept that there are two separate tasks in creating a document: creating the content and formatting the content. As with nearly all dichotomies, this one is subject to gray areas that don�t clearly fall into either extreme, but for the sake of discussion, let�s assume the dichotomy. 

The theory has three parts. 

1. Content creators vs. content formatters 

From the responses of some FM users, I�m obtaining the impression that there are a fair number of FM users who don�t create the content of their publications, but obtain content created by others and then use FM to format it. 

This is similar to traditional book publishing before the advent of the personal computer: the author creates content using a typewriter and hand drawings, while the professional typesetter formats the content for publishing. 

I�d appreciate feedback as to whether the foregoing perspective is accurate or not. If it is accurate, I�m curious if anyone can estimate the percentage of FM users who format content without creating it. I�ll refer to this segment as the content formatters, and I�ll proceed under the assumption that the percentage is non-trivial. 

2. Content formatters have incremental workflow 

I conjecture that it is the content formatters who wish to argue that the deficiency of productivity tools in FM � tools such as multiple undo � is just fine. I conjecture that, underlying this attitude, content formatting may be more easily structured into an incremental workflow than content creation can normally be. 

In writing my book, I can assure you that the work cannot be structured into an incremental workflow. A statement in one part of the book must be consistent with the rest of the book, so I can find myself jumping throughout the book to ensure the consistency of some theme. But while dealing with that theme, I may find it necessary to begin dealing with another theme as well, since the book is an integrated whole. 

3. Adobe targets formatters 

In the PDF document on this website entitled �How to Choose the Right Adobe Page Layout Software�, Adobe explains that Framemaker is for books, manuals, and technical documents. They even go on to state the following: 

�FrameMaker includes all of the authoring tools and features required for reliable, template-driven content authoring�.�  

The third part of my theory is that, contrary to the foregoing statements of Adobe, in developing FM Adobe actually targets content formatters, not content creators. More specifically, Adobe would like to target content creators as well as content formatters, consistent with the foregoing quote, but Adobe is unwilling to spend sufficient money to target content creators. 

In this view, this is the reason Adobe hasn�t incorporated productivity features such as multiple undo. While multiple undo would increase the efficiency of formatting, due to the incremental workflow of formatting, other tools can normally be used by formatters to achieve what would otherwise be achieved more efficiently by undo. 

Conclusion: Goodbye FM 

Assuming the accuracy of the foregoing theory, we can draw the following conclusion: the FM user will go the way of the dodo. 

Why? 

Because the progress of competing DTP technology makes it easier and easier to format, thereby providing less and less work for formatters. Put differently, as competing DTP technology progresses, more and more content creators will do their own formatting, making it unnecessary for them to pay someone to do the formatting. 

What are the leading contenders to FM? That�s the topic of the thread �The best alternative to FM�. Evidently the leading contenders are Microsoft Word and Corel Ventura, and of the two respective companies, Microsoft is in the best position to compete with Adobe, so let�s briefly consider Word. 

A notable theme in Word development is to make formatting easier for the average person. The development of Word in this direction does contain salient shortcomings, as discussed by Fredrik Folkeryd in message 13 of the best alternative thread. Just the same, the overall direction of development is correct, so we can expect the shortcomings to be resolved over time, along with the bugs that are so annoying. 

In light of the theory, we can expect Word to be adopted more and more by content creators, leaving less and less work for content formatters using FM. Thus, in time, the FM user will go the way of the dodo. 

In closing, one of the features of Microsoft Office that is designed to make work easier and more pleasant is the office assistant. The office assistant is an animated cartoon character of your choice who provides tips, help information, and announcements that would otherwise be displayed in those small windows that request the user�s response. Although I prefer the paperclip character as office assistant, my daughter prefers the kitty cat. 

In light of the foregoing theory, I predict that the Microsoft Office kitty cat of tomorrow will replace the FM user of today.