Angst about Adobe/Macromedia

Sarah O'Keefe / OpinionLeave a Comment

Some have suggest that the merged company be renamed. “Macrobe” appears to be the leading contender.

There is lots of anxiety about software, especially where the two product lines intersect. Illustrator or Freehand? GoLive or DreamWeaver? I would bet on the tool with better market share, which would be bad news for Freehand (Macromedia) and GoLive (Adobe).

You’ll notice that Freehand doesn’t even make it onto the main products toolbar at Macromedia’s web site. Mouse over the Products link in the navigation bar. You’ll find Studio, DreamWeaver, Flash, ColdFusion (in that order), and eventually the humble “More.” FreeHand is part of the Studio suite, but so are DreamWeaver and Flash, and they merit separate links on the main navigation bar.

This article also mention possible implications for Quark. Charlie Corr, group director at InfoTrendsCAP Ventures, said:

Clearly Adobe has picked up share and they have a broader play [both in multimedia as well as enterprise]. Quark has become sort of a one trick—well arguably, they’ve always been a one-trick pony.

The merger shouldn’t be a problem for unique products. Thus, we have:

  • PDF (Adobe)
  • Flash (Macromedia)
  • InDesign (Adobe, print publishing)
  • Director (Macromedia, multimedia authoring)
  • ColdFusion (Macromedia, high-end web development)
  • Breeze (Macromedia, online presentations)
  • Premiere (Adobe, digital video)
  • Typefaces and PostScript technology (Adobe)

Generally, Adobe is much stronger for print publishing while Macromedia excels on the web side. Both have a strong presence among professional users — graphic designers, print publishing professionals, and the like. Adobe has made more of an effort in the consumer market with software such as Photoshop Elements. Macromedia has almost no presence in the consumer market — with the possible exception of DreamWeaver.

You had me at “structural markup”…

Sarah O'Keefe / OpinionLeave a Comment

Have you thought about the evolution of publishing recently? Here’s someone who has:

Typewriting (like most handwriting) is a process of applying ink to paper and making the text readable — in more or less one operation (by pressing down keys, letters are punched on to the paper). It probably makes sense to say that you must write before you can read, but clearly the storing and making a representation of the text are performed in one inseparable operation; by applying ink on paper.

In digital writing, by comparison, writing is performed by the execution of a series of discrete steps. By touching the key of a keyboard, signals are sent to the computer. Here the signaled information is converted and handled by the central processing unit and temporarily stored in main memory. In the computer, new signals are created and transported to the display unit. On screen the text is represented in a visual, readable way. In this digital cycle storing and making a representation of the text are performed in two different operations.

The article, Digital Text Cycles: From Medieval Manuscripts to Modern Markup (January 2017: Updated to fix broken link) is long, but worthwhile except for an odd digression:

The belief that a text can be rearranged and moulded by technological means, presupposes that content and presentation can be treated independently, as logically distinct features: it rests on the false supposition that any kind of written or verbal content can be presented at will in any medium and for whatever purpose.

My approach to single sourcing is much more nuanced. Certain types of information are well-suited to reuse and changes in presentation. For example, glossary entries could be presented in alphabetical order at the back of a book. In online help, it makes more sense to create pop-up links from the term to the definition. Both presentations can easily be generated from a single glossary source file.

But it’s a long way from my glossary example to the assumption that you can present any content in any medium.