Reactions to the TechComm Suite
posted by Sarah
Bloggers are starting to comment on the TC Suite. Here are a few I spotted this morning:

Bill Swallow ("TechCommDood") writes on waxing techcomm:

I'll admit, I'm both impressed at the package (the monetary deal for the payload of technology is quite appealing) and at Adobe's direct acknowledgement of the techcomm market. [...]
The workflow is still unidirectional; FrameMaker to RoboHelp to online output. There is no going back from RoboHelp should you make changes (which you can, since RoboHelp also remains an authoring tool) once you import the FrameMaker content.
This is where the similarities between RoboHelp and the likes of WebWorks Publisher and Mif2Go end. RoboHelp allows you the option to continue to edit content in the built-in (or external) HTML editor after import.

This is an important point (and a highly problematic one). If you link your FrameMaker content into a RoboHelp project and then make changes to the FrameMaker-sourced content in RoboHelp, then you end up with two copies of the content. Not good, and the temptation to just "tweak a few things" is always there. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this point.)

Bob Doyle writes on his techwr-l.com blog:

You can include Help in FrameMaker projects, eLearning in RoboHelp and in Frame, 3D animations in Help and Frame and in PDF documents, RoboHelp screen captures from Frame, etc, etc. All the tools include direct access to aspects of the others from within the tool. You do not have to leave one tool to “Edit with…” another tool. And no longer are conversions needed to reuse assets.

This is the first reference I've seen to reusing RoboHelp content in FrameMaker. I don't believe that this is actually possible.

Another positive initial review from Ron Miller:

[...] Adobe appears to have taken care to put integration on the front burner to make it easier for training and tech writing departments to share content.

[... T]hey appear to have answered all the criticisms I had of RH6 and then some with RH 7. What's more they have integrated it with Frame to create a fully featured publishing environment.

Until I take it through its paces with a project, it's hard to judge but the first impressions were good and it appears clear that Adobe wants to claim a place in the tech writing market.

Dan Ortega of Astoria (via Charles Jeter) clearly identifies the strategic problem with the Suite:

[...] Adobe still appears to be focused on a desktop paradigm. [... W]hen they reference workflow, they refer to workflow integration between the products in the TC Suite. [...]

If Adobe plans to succeed in the enterprise, they have to take a much broader view of how technical documentation teams work by moving beyond the creation perspective. They need to adopt a perspective that encompasses the entire production cycle[...].

Adobe's products are evolving and becoming more integrated, but they are doing so inside the Adobe walls. Conveniently, FrameMaker and RoboHelp are now neighbor, where before they were more like rival gangs with a turf war. But the XML and XSL barbarians are at the gates, and it's time to let them in and accept them as citizens. (This metaphor has clearly run, er, amok.)

The era of proprietary content files is over. Baseline content needs to be in XML because of the "production cycle" that Mr. Ortega describes. XML is:

• Supported by content management systems
• Advantageous for localization workflows
• Enforceable (that is, you can enforce your preferred structure)
• An excellent starting point for automated content production (via XSL, FrameMaker, or even InDesign)

Authoring tools aren't going anywhere, but the FrameMaker- or RoboHelp-centric universe is not going to last.

Labels: FrameMaker, robohelp, TechComm Suite, xml

10:45 AM Permalink | |

 
eWeek analysis of TC Suite
posted by Sarah
They misspelled Michael Hu's name, so minus points for sloppiness.

Introducing: Adobe's Software for the Technical Writer (eWeek)

I have some issues with this article. For instance:

• The lead-in: "Determined to earn revenues beyond the Web developer market, Adobe Sept. 25 released its Technical Communication Suite [...]." Hmmm. Creative Suite is for web developers? Acrobat?
• "The new suite comes almost as an afterthought to the company's Flash, Flex and the AIR (Adobe Integrated Runtime, formerly code-named Apollo) Web development technologies, whose futures were discussed Sept. 20 at the FlashForward conference in Boston." That's just a weird editorial comment. Creative Suite 3 was released this spring, so was Flash/Flex/AIR an afterthought to CS3? Different release cycles do not necessarily equal "afterthought." Also, I don't think the audience for FFA and for TC Suite have much (if any) overlap.

I think the addition of support for Flash into Acrobat is important -- it will allow us to create much more interactive PDF files. But I'm afraid that I'm not quite on-board with the hyperbole from Adobe (sorry, Mike)?

"We're going to change the dynamics of this industry and change how people are creating content and change how people consume this content," Wu [sic] said.

Here is the unauthorized translation:

This TC Suite is going to hurt our competitors, who are all providing point solutions. Even if you concede that, for example, Flare might be better than RoboHelp, when we put FrameMaker and RoboHelp in a single box with an attractive price point, it makes purchasing FrameMaker and Flare separately less appealing.

ePublisher Pro's integration with FrameMaker is probably better than RoboHelp's, at least for now, but licensing RoboHelp as part of the Suite is going to be much easier than justifying two separate purchases.

If we can piggy-back Captivate onto the big authoring tools (FrameMaker and RoboHelp), we'll get incremental revenue from people who might have otherwise not bothered with buying a simulation tool.

In short, the losers are going to be:

• MadCap, which makes Flare (RoboHelp competitor), Mimic (Captivate competitor), and, someday, Blaze (alleged FrameMaker competitor).
• Quadralay, which makes ePublisher Pro (conversion tool for FrameMaker to HTML, sort-of RoboHelp competitor)
• Qarbon, which makes Viewlet Builder (Captivate competitor)
• TechSmith, which makes Camtasia (Captivate competitor)
  

Lots of Captivate competition on that list. Makes you wonder if this is really about Flash and Acrobat, rather than FrameMaker/RoboHelp integration.

And one other random note: MadCap already has a suite called MadPak, which includes Flare (help authoring), Mimic (simulation), Capture (screen captures), and Echo (audio). No great print solution, though.

Labels: FrameMaker, madcap, robohelp, TechComm Suite

12:57 PM Permalink | |

 
First glimpse of TC Suite on Adobe's site
posted by Sarah
The German version of the Captivate product page includes a note that Captivate is a component of the Adobe Technical Communication Suite:


Unfortunately, when you click the link, it results in a page not found. However, I think we can safely assume that this will be the product page for the TC Suite:

http://www.adobe.com/products/technicalcommunicationsuite/

Meanwhile, the English version of the Captivate page does not (yet) contain the reference to the suite.

[Updated September 25, 2007: The link above is now working, and the English Captivate page has the same reference to the TC Suite. The link from the reference does not yet, however, point to the TC Suite page.]

Labels: TechComm Suite

3:27 PM Permalink | |

 
Not-So-Creative Suite
posted by Sarah
According to Cherryleaf (via Cap-Studio), Adobe has announced the Adobe Technical Communication Suite.

This suite will contain FrameMaker, RoboHelp, Captivate and Acrobat 3D, and it will cost $1599 (a 56% saving over the full price). [Note: I do not know whether this is U.S. or international pricing.] Upgrades from any component of the suite would be less.

Some thoughts...

If you in need of several of the components, you'll obviously save money over licensing them individually, so a definite customer win there.

This is not good news for Quadralay/ePublisher Pro. Even if we assume that the FrameMaker/RoboHelp integration isn't as powerful as FrameMaker/ePublisher Pro, it's likely to be good enough for many.

A monolithic suite with cross-product integration (I assume) seems like the wrong direction in the current market. Our customers are asking for lightweight XML solutions. They are looking for ways to reduce their dependence on proprietary systems. We are currently working one project that's moving from Word to DITA with an assortment of editors and extensive customization of the DITA Open Toolkit for output. Another project is moving from unstructured FrameMaker/ePublisher Pro to structured FrameMaker/XML/XSL; output is various flavors of HTML and of course PDF/print. I just don't see the TC Suite as a contender for these customers.

We do, however, have another customer who is currently authoring in Word and RoboHelp and is deeply displeased with the quality of printed output and the amount of work required to produce online help. For them, the Suite provides the right set of tools; they do not need XML at this time. But how many similar workgroups are out there?

What do you think? Is the new TC Suite appealing to you?

Labels: FrameMaker, robohelp, TechComm Suite

12:08 PM Permalink | |