The availability of Quark XPress 5 and Adobe InDesign 2 made us wonder: what is the core content in a typesetting software? In this article we will compare the two softwares.
First, background introduction
In the past ten years, Quark XPress has been better than Adobe PageMaker in the field of typesetting. This advantage has caused designers and publishers in the high-end typesetting field to use XPress as the standard, to endure their shortcomings, or to resort to wide-ranging needs when needed. Third-party XTension software to make up for its deficiencies. Although Adobe software has strong advantages in other aspects (especially image editing and PDF), Quark has been in a dominant position in the layout of text and images. With the passage of time, the habit of people using Quark has been difficult to change, making Quark's leading edge more robust and difficult to change.
In 1997, rumors about Adobe's introduction of a new application called "Quark Killer" (known as K2) were clarified. Shortly afterwards, a new typesetting software, InDesign, was born, and gradually aging PageMaker was repositioned in the commercial market and competed with Microsoft's Publisher in this field. Initially, InDesign software was also greeted with cold weather, mainly due to its slow performance, output problems, and lack of multiple features. A few months later, the 1.5 version was introduced, which corrected many important flaws, but it still did not cause too much reaction on the market. Now that Adobe is ready to release version 2.0, it is currently in beta and is scheduled for launch early this year.
The launch of the InDesign 1.x series version did not shake Quark's market share. (Actually, Adobe more successfully sold the InDesign software components to publishing system developers and original equipment manufacturer OEMs, such as DTI and Managing Editor.) Although Quark's upgrade is slow and 4.0 has many problems, it does It does provide people with a very powerful tool and people have no reason to give it up. 
Second, market competition Today's typesetting market is very different from the late 1980s. The popularization revolution of desktop publishing system DTP has been for a long time. It completely replaced the proprietary typesetting system and traditional imposition jobs. Most designers or publishers already invested a lot of money and sufficient training for such a system (usually based on Quark), so very few people have decided to purchase such products for the first time. Even if Adobe introduced excellent products at the very beginning, the status quo is clearly biased towards Quark. The worrying performance and output issues in the first edition of InDesign have made the problem even more severe, seriously undermining people's attention to this new product.
For a mature market, Quark also has its own problems. Because the early Xpress satisfied most people's demand for page production, there was little demand for a large fee-based upgrade. Most of the features that Quark can add to are already present in XTention, which further dilutes the desire for new software.
Another area that is contrary to the current situation is cross-media publishing. In theory, the text and graphics prepared for printing can be used multiple times on web pages or other non-print media with minimal labor. Like other developers, Adobe and Quark both add network capabilities to their software.
Considering that both companies are facing a very severe form, the purpose of this review in this paper is to introduce software capabilities that may attract users to upgrade or replace. Although it cannot be a detailed list, it is a generalized summary of the different process issues for both applications. Of course, we will give the most fair recognition of their respective advantages.
Third, important functions Even the most dazzling design features do not necessarily translate into economic benefits. When InDesign was first introduced, its advanced typesetting capabilities have been touted as an important advantage. Unfortunately, many prospective customers find that this feature is not very powerful, especially because it also results in slower operation. Many people are accustomed to the typesetting software that is not so perfect. They are not interested in more perfect software, or they don’t want to replace it. (Some people who look at the proofs even see the hanging holes or other details in InDesign as an error. ). New design features do not change the status quo unless they attract the attention of most users.
After detailed testing of the two products, the six points that are important for printers and publishers are summarized:
* Basic workflow, including the use of layers, operational interactivity with other software and basic user experience;
* Form processing, including the import and formatting of list data;
* Transparency issues, including the creation of composite images with softened edges;
* Support for long files * Cross-media publishing, including processing of PDF, HTML, XML files * Performance of the entire system, including speed, supported operating systems, and in particular printing issues
There are many problems that we cannot discuss in detail, such as color management. We do not perform a full test on the two softwares, but we do extensive research on these two kinds of software in their existing data tables.
Basic Streaming Both XPress and InDesign use the same basic program, allowing users to "insert" or "place" text or images in a "folder" or "framework," and users can manipulate these elements directly. Or "folder" to design a page. With the introduction of new versions of these two software, they will be close to the DTP function.
Layers: From the outset, InDesign has such a feature as a layer, and now Quark will also introduce this feature. Interestingly, one reason to add layers in a layout product is to generate different, selectable file versions, but the implementation of this feature appears to be even better in Quark products. Both of these softwares can hide or lock an individual layer, but only XPress can allow text-wrapping behavior to be changed when the layer is hidden. This may seem like a trivial feature, but it reflects the continued attention of multi-version file designers to the process of control modification. Even if different graphics are encountered on different layers, the positioning of the basic text of the file may change, but only one proof of the text is required. InDesign software does not have this feature, resulting in different versions of text and graphics can only be placed in the same fixed position.
Coordinating work: Adobe claims to be an advantage because InDesign is compatible with other design software (for example, Adobe's application software), which can make the designer's work easier. Although Adobe's competitors may consider this argument to be unfair or pompous, some users in the survey did agree. Adobe product commands and program similarities reduce the difficulty of learning. However, we feel that the greatest advantage of this kind of coordination between Adobe products lies in the sharing of file formats.
Unlike Quark, Adobe's publishing software can import Photoshop or Illustrator's original files, not just TIFF or EPS files. InDesign has a great potential for processing PDF files. It can use the PDF file as an imported graphic format or as an export format without Distiller. (One thing that has to be realized here is also very ironic is that Adobe's vital expertise has forced Quark to import or export open formats.)
We will discuss the advantages of supporting the original document later. However, we found that this compatibility of application files does not in itself force Quark users to abandon existing processes. Similarly, this similar "look and feel" of InDesign and its sister software really appeals to users, but it also cannot change the status quo.
Other issues: There are still a number of performance differences worth noting in the rest of the workflow. QuarkXPress cannot undo many operations and can only restore one of them. InDesign can restore multiple operations based on system resources and is a luxury that users can easily become accustomed to. However, InDeign cannot implement many operations that QuarkXPress users take for granted, even if the gap is very small. For example, InDesign cannot generate a text package for an array of graphics. Both of these softwares are highly editable (InDesign applies Applescript and VB cript on Mac and Windows, respectively). However, only XPress integrates Applescript into the menu. Neither software has an operation function similar to Photoshop action. Another point that is different from our expectation is that InDesign lacks the Story Editor feature, which is different from PageMaker.
Adobe hopes that future designers can be attracted to InDesign's "Workgroup" function, which is said to increase workflow productivity through the use of WebDAV servers. We don't have time to test this feature, but for larger designs this feature does have a fascinating potential advantage. It is still difficult to say whether this feature will appeal to InDesign's individual users or larger workgroups, such as using InScope's workgroup.